Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nass MCP

Nass MCP

by Mosabomer2000
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

nass_start_audio_download

Queue an audio-only download for long videos without captions or speech recognition, then poll job status to retrieve the audio when ready.

Instructions

Queue an audio-only download without captions or speech recognition; poll job status. Better suited than the synchronous tool for long videos.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "video_url": "<video_url>"
    },
    "name": "nass_start_audio_download"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
video_urlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the async pattern ('Queue... poll job status'), which tells the agent this returns a job rather than the file. But it omits where the output lands, the download format, and any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action before the usage note. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an async job-starting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral fact (polling for status) but leaves return format, output location, and the unnamed alternative tool context unresolved.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single video_url parameter. The description implies a video source is required but adds no format, accepted-host, or validity detail beyond the parameter name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Queue an audio-only download without captions or speech recognition.' The scope qualifier distinguishes it from nass_start_transcription, but it does not clearly differentiate from the sibling nass_download_original_audio, which reads as a near-neighbor.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Better suited than the synchronous tool for long videos' gives a condition for selection, but the alternative is referred to vaguely as 'the synchronous tool' rather than by name, and no sibling names are given. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools