synter-mcp-server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate 'destructiveHint: true,' implying a write operation that may consume resources. The description mentions AI providers (Veo, Runway, Luma) and use cases (YouTube/social ads), but doesn't disclose critical details like rate limits, costs, processing time, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds contextual value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (AI video generation with 6 parameters) and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint) but no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and why but lacks details on behavioral aspects like processing behavior, error handling, or output expectations, which are important for a destructive operation.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'concept' enum values like 'pas' or 'aida' in more detail). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate an AI video ad using Veo, Runway, or Luma.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('AI video ad'), and technology providers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_image' beyond mentioning video vs. image, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose video over image generation.

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 provides some usage context: 'Great for YouTube and social ads.' This implies a marketing/advertising use case. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_image' or other campaign creation tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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