get_video_subtitleGenerate SRT subtitles for SJTU Canvas videos by providing course ID and video ID, returning readable text rows.
Read subtitle rows for one SJTU video and return generated SRT text.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Read subtitle rows' and 'return generated SRT text.' It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing subtitles), authentication needs, or any side effects, which is thin for a tool with zero annotation 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and result with no wasted words. Every phrase earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 a fully documented schemaate, the description is adequate: it names the operation, scope, and output format. However, with no annotations and no output schema, some added context about edge cases (e.g., no subtitle rows) or when it should be used via a sibling would improve completeness.
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 schema already documents both parameters, and video_id's description ('from list_course_videos') adds useful sourcing context. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with an explicit resource ('subtitle rows for one SJTU video') and names the output ('generated SRT text'). This clearly distinguishes it from video-related siblings like get_video_info and get_video_ppt_slices.
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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.