get_video_infoRetrieve playback metadata for a specific SJTU video by supplying its course ID and video ID. The response returns token-redacted details, enabling safe access to video information.
Read playback metadata for one SJTU video. Returned payload is token-redacted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes | SJTU video ID from list_course_videos | |
| course_id | Yes | Canvas course ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, and 'Returned payload is token-redacted' adds a meaningful privacy-related behavioral detail. It could mention auth or error behavior, but for a simple read tool this is solid coverage.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaning: the operation and the notable token-redaction behavior. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not enumerate what 'playback metadata' includes, so the agent cannot know what fields to expect. Minor usage guidance and response detail would make it complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents, such as video_id being sourced from list_course_videos. It correctly implies both parameters identify a single video, but provides no additional semantics.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read playback metadata for one SJTU video.' This clearly identifies the operation and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like video_status or get_video_subtitle, but 'playback metadata' narrows the meaning well enough.
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 when a single video's playback metadata is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as video_status or get_video_subtitle, so the agent must infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.