download_ffmpeg_resultRetrieve the download URL and metadata for a completed FFmpeg job to access processed media files directly, avoiding streaming through MCP.
Returns the download URL and metadata for a completed FFmpeg job without streaming the processed file through MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.1Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already in annotations, the description only needs to add extra nuance. It does so by explaining that no streaming through MCP occurs, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond a simple read operation. It adds useful context without any contradictions.
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 a single explanatory sentence that leads with the core purpose, uses precise wording, and avoids extraneous details. It is efficient and well-structured for quick parsing.
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 is a simple read-only operation with one parameter and an output schema exists to describe the returned structure, the description covers the essential facts: what is being returned, for which kind of job, and its non-streaming behavior. The only minor gap is not clarifying any required preconditions (e.g., that job must have succeeded), but 'completed' mitigates this.
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 for the undocumented jobId param. It refers to a 'completed FFmpeg job', which strongly implies jobId is the job identifier, but it never explicitly names or formats the parameter. The description adds marginal meaning but not as explicitly as it could.
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 verb ('Returns'), the resource ('download URL and metadata for a completed FFmpeg job'), and adds a key differentiator: 'without streaming the processed file through MCP'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ffmpeg_job or submit_ffmpeg_job with no ambiguity.
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 specifies that the tool is for a 'completed' FFmpeg job, providing a clear prerequisite. It also hints at an alternative behavior by indicating it does not stream, but it stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools like get_ffmpeg_job or other streaming-oriented tools, so no clear 'when-not-to-use' is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.