MiniMax MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool queries status and saves output to a directory, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the status response includes (e.g., pending, completed, failed). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential async operations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add clarity without redundancy. However, the inclusion of 'Returns' details could be slightly verbose since there's no output schema, but it's still efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of async video generation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what the status text contains, error cases). The return statement is helpful but vague, leaving room for improvement in fully guiding the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'task_id' should come from 'generate_video' if 'async_mode' is True and that 'output_directory' is for saving the video. This clarifies usage and dependencies, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query the status of a video generation task.' It specifies the verb 'query' and the resource 'video generation task,' making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_video' beyond mentioning it in the parameter description, which is helpful but not a direct comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by referencing the 'generate_video' tool in the parameter description, suggesting it should be used when 'async_mode' is True. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for synchronous tasks or other status-checking methods) and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some context gaps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.