Extract and persist a deterministic temporal evidence package from any video asset, capturing frame timing and region data for verifiable forensic analysis.
Build and persist the complete deterministic temporal evidence package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | ||
| project_dir | Yes | ||
| declared_regions | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool builds and persists something, implying a write operation, but it says nothing about what gets created or overwritten, where persistence occurs, idempotency, required permissions, or how 'deterministic' behavior is enforced.
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?
There is only one short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and a complex-sounding purpose, a single vague sentence does not earn its place because it omits nearly all operational context.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no usage or behavioral detail, the description leaves critical gaps for an agent trying to call this tool correctly. It is only marginally complete because it at least implies a write/package operation.
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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (project_dir, asset_id, declared_regions). An agent gets no semantic meaning for required parameters or the optional region list beyond the bare names.
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 verb and loosely identifies a resource: 'Build and persist ... temporal evidence package.' However, it does not explain what temporal evidence is, what is inspected, or how this differs from the many sibling inspection tools such as video_inspect, video_preflight, or video_verdict. The purpose is indicated but vague.
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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the extensive sibling tool list. An agent must infer entirely from the name that this tool is appropriate for temporal inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.