Search ingested videos using hybrid visual and lexical retrieval to find ranked shots with timestamps, transcripts, and filmstrip paths for clip review.
Hybrid visual (CLIP/SigLIP) + lexical (BM25) RRF search across ingested videos. Returns ranked shots with timestamps, transcript, and filmstrip image paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | ||
| mode | No | hybrid | |
| query | Yes | ||
| video_filter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses the ranked-shot return payload and the fusion method, giving some sense of result semantics. However, it omits the read-only/safety profile, the meaning of the default k, and any note that results are bounded by what has been ingested.
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 dense sentences that front-load the search method and then the return contract, with no filler. Every clause adds information an agent needs.
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?
The return format is covered despite no output schema, which is a plus. But with four parameters at 0% description coverage and no annotation context, the definition leaves key invocation details (k semantics, video_filter target, mode selection) underspecified for a search tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only loosely gestures at the `mode` values via 'visual (CLIP/SigLIP)' and 'lexical (BM25)' without tying them to the enum. The `k` and `video_filter` parameters are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 (search) and resource (corpus of ingested videos) and names the hybrid technique (CLIP/SigLIP + BM25 RRF). It also discloses the return shape (ranked shots with timestamps/transcript/filmstrips), which clearly differentiates it from ingest_video, get_ingest_status, get_transcript, and get_shot_context.
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 implies this is the retrieval tool among the siblings, but it never states when to prefer it, when to fall back to get_transcript or get_shot_context, or when video_filter is warranted. Usage is inferable from the corpus/search framing rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.