Read metadata tags from a video or audio file using its absolute path to inspect embedded media details before editing.
Read metadata tags from a video/audio file.
Args: input_path: Absolute path to the video or audio file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| input_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.4Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+ "title": "Overwrite",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read metadata tags' implies a non-destructive read, but nothing confirms that, and the presence of an 'overwrite' parameter that 'explicitly allow[s] replacing existing media' on a read-only tool is left completely unexplained, which is a behavioral gap an agent would want clarified.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence with the parameter documentation following, and there is no filler. It is tight, though arguably under-specified rather than over-written.
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 no explanation, and the single required path is covered. But for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, the unexplained overwrite flag and the lack of any sibling disambiguation leave it only minimally 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 coverage is 50%: input_path has only a title in the schema, and the description usefully adds that it must be an absolute path to a video or audio file. The second parameter, overwrite, is neither described here nor obviously relevant to a metadata read, so the description does not fully compensate.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read metadata tags from a video/audio file'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like video_info or video_info_detailed, leaving ambiguity about which metadata reader to pick.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (video_info, video_info_detailed, video_inspect_temporal) covers related needs. The agent must infer the choice entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.