KlingMCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Excellently documents domain-specific state lifecycle ('pending', 'completed', 'failed') with behavioral explanations. Discloses return data composition (URLs, state, metadata) and suggests failure handling ('check error message').

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?

Clear hierarchical structure with purpose first, followed by usage scenarios, task states, and returns. Each section earns its place—task state definitions are essential for async workflow comprehension. Minor efficiency opportunity: 'Returns' section duplicates output schema, but provides useful summary.

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?

Comprehensive for single-task status polling. Covers workflow integration (following generation calls), state machine behavior, and output data. Minor gap: could reference kling_get_tasks_batch as alternative for bulk operations to ensure correct tool selection.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with task_id fully described in schema (including linkage to sibling tool outputs). Description focuses on operation semantics rather than parameter details, appropriate baseline for high-coverage schema.

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?

Strong specific verb ('Query') plus clear resource scope ('status and result of a video generation task'). Explicitly positions this as the retrieval/polling tool, distinguishing it from generation siblings (kling_generate_*, kling_extend_*) by describing its role in checking completion of previous submissions.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance with 'Use this when:' section listing three specific scenarios (check completion, retrieve URLs, get full details). However, lacks distinction from sibling kling_get_tasks_batch—when to prefer single vs batch retrieval is unclear.

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