Download HLS (m3u8) streams and merge their segments into one file. Select master playlist bitrate, handle AES-128 encrypted fragments, and resume interrupted transfers.
下载 HLS(m3u8) 并合并为单文件。支持 master 选码率、AES-128 加密分片、断点续传。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | m3u8 地址（master 或媒体列表） | |
| proxy | No | ||
| output | No | ||
| headers | No | ||
| quality | No | best / worst / 码率索引 | |
| restart | No | ||
| insecure | No | ||
| connections | No | 分片并发数，默认 8 | |
| keep_segments | 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 behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits: AES-128 decryption is handled automatically, master playlists allow bitrate selection, and downloads are resumable. It does not state permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure/partial output.
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 tightly packed sentences with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the supporting capabilities.
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?
With 9 parameters, 33% coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Six parameters and the return/error behavior are left entirely unexplained for a fairly complex 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It hints at bitrate selection (quality) and resumability (restart), but proxy, output, headers, insecure, connections, and keep_segments are undocumented 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 (下载/download), a specific resource (HLS/m3u8), and the outcome (合并为单文件/merge into a single file). It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like start_download, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 lists supported features (master bitrate selection, AES-128, resumable) but gives no guidance on when to use this instead of start_download or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.