Download videos from any URL, pick mp4, mp3, or m4a, and get a temporary download link.
Download video from any URL and return a temporary download link. Cost: video 3 credits, audio 2 credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL of the video or post containing a video. | |
| format | No | Output format. | mp4 |
| quality | No | Desired video quality (best available up to this resolution). | 720 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the credit cost (3 for video, 2 for audio) and that the returned link is temporary, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, failure modes, or what happens to the generated file. Partial coverage for a mutation-ish operation.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with cost appended as a secondary fact. 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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return value (a temporary download link), which is its main burden. However, with zero annotations and a real cost/irreversibility dimension, it omits auth requirements, link expiry behavior, and error handling, leaving notable gaps.
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 100% with enums and defaults for format and quality, so the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only indirect value by implying the audio/video cost split (mp3/m4a vs mp4) without tying it explicitly to the format parameter.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Download video from any URL') and even names the return value (a temporary download link). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'video-info', which an agent might reasonably confuse with a downloader.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling 'video-info' or 'file-convert'. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.