Check which independent caption, audio, and ASR backends are available before transcription. Use results to avoid assuming installation alone means working service.
Inspect availability of independent caption/audio/ASR backends; never claim success from installation alone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that installation state is not evidence of availability — but it never states whether the check is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the reported statuses look like.
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 clause plus a single imperative, front-loaded with the operation and resource. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.
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 parameterless diagnostic, the description covers intent and one interpretation caveat, but with no output schema it should ideally say what the inspection returns (per-backend status shape, which backends). The agent knows why to call it but not what to expect back.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter-level clarification is needed or missing.
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 specific verb (inspect) and resource (availability of independent caption/audio/ASR backends), which distinguishes it from the job/transcript/download siblings, including the superficially similar nass_job_status. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the scope is clear enough to route correctly.
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?
Usage is only implied: run this to verify backends before asserting success. The caveat 'never claim success from installation alone' hints at when it matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the ten siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.