Execute a quoted AI video generation with upfront credit hold and refund on failure; requires explicit confirmation and max_credits at least equal to the quote.
Run a quote. SPENDS REELO CREDITS (held at start, refunded if the run fails). Requires explicit user confirmation and max_credits >= the quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes | ||
| quote_id | Yes | ||
| max_credits | Yes | ||
| webhook_url | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does the most important part well: it discloses that credits are SPENT, held at start, and refunded on failure, plus the confirmation requirement. It omits whether the run is synchronous or async (and thus whether get_run polling is needed), how idempotency_key and webhook_url alter behavior, and what the call returns.
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?
Three short sentences with the cost warning capitalized and front-loaded, then the preconditions. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
The critical financial/confirmation behavior is covered, which is the highest-value information for a credit-spending mutation. But with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 of 5 parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks enough to invoke and follow up on this tool reliably (e.g., polling vs webhook).
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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only adds meaning for max_credits (must be >= the quote). board_id, quote_id, webhook_url, and idempotency_key are entirely undocumented, including the important retry-safety semantics of idempotency_key.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Run a quote') that distinguishes it from the sibling quote_video, which presumably creates the quote. However, it never explains what a 'quote' or a 'run' actually is, so an agent unfamiliar with the domain must infer the quote_video -> run_quote relationship.
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?
Provides a precondition ('Requires explicit user confirmation', 'max_credits >= the quote') which is genuine usage guidance, but gives no when-to-use vs alternatives routing — it never mentions quote_video, get_run, or get_run_assets, so the agent must infer the lifecycle position on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.