Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
anime-video-mcp

anime-video-mcp

by Simonxz578
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

qa_episode

Inspect a project directory to report pending media-provider or QA-gate issues, helping you identify unresolved steps before proceeding.

Instructions

Report pending media provider or QA gate.

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": {
      "project_dir": "<project_dir>"
    },
    "name": "qa_episode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_dirYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only vaguely implies a reporting operation. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies project state, what it returns, whether it requires a prior render, or what side effects may occur.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is brief, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure. There is no front-loaded action, no context, and no sentence that clearly earns its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an unexplained required parameter, the description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what input is expected, or what result to anticipate.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The required project_dir parameter is entirely unexplained: the description never mentions it, its format, whether it is a path or ID, or how it relates to the report.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description supplies a verb ('Report') and a resource ('pending media provider or QA gate'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, the phrasing is vague and ambiguous: it does not clarify what qa_episode does to an episode, what a 'pending media provider' is, or how this differs from the sibling production tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not name alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites, or the place of QA in the pipeline, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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