get_ffmpeg_consumptionCheck monthly FFmpeg processing minutes used versus your plan's allowance to monitor consumption and avoid overage.
Monthly FFmpeg processing minutes used vs. plan allowance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful semantic context that this is a monthly plan-allowance comparison rather than a per-job status lookup. For a simple quota getter, this is sufficient transparency.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key concept 'monthly FFmpeg processing minutes used vs. plan allowance'. No fluff, no repetition of the tool name.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only quota tool, the description plus readOnlyHint and an output schema is largely complete. It clearly identifies the metric and comparison. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_ffmpeg_job, but the quota-vs-job distinction is strongly implied by the wording.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds meaning to what the tool reports (monthly usage vs. allowance), fully covering the no-parameter case.
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 a specific read-only purpose: report monthly FFmpeg processing minutes used versus the plan allowance. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_ffmpeg_job, which concerns individual jobs, not consumption.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ffmpeg_job or submit_ffmpeg_job. The context is clear from the description, but the description does not help an agent choose between related tools or rule out alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.