MidOS Research Protocol MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates the async nature ('queue') and processing steps (transcribe, extract insights), but fails to disclose safety traits like whether this creates persistent storage, requires specific permissions, or has rate limiting.

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?

The description is appropriately sized with two clear sentences explaining the function followed by a structured Args section. The front-loaded purpose statement allows quick comprehension, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly informal.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential behavioral context and parameter semantics, though additional guidance on usage constraints would strengthen it.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section. It specifies that 'url' is a YouTube URL and lists the valid enum values ('high', 'normal', 'low') for the 'priority' parameter, which are not defined in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool queues a YouTube video for research and that 'Midos' (the processing system) will transcribe and extract insights. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge or semantic_search which query existing data rather than ingesting new video content.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to queue a video for research vs. searching existing knowledge). There are no stated prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or comparisons to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.