Qwen Video Understanding MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool returns ('configured endpoint URLs and connection status'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, what format the status information takes, if there are rate limits, whether it performs active connection testing or returns cached data, or what happens if endpoints are unreachable.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies what information is returned. There's zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 moderate complexity (status checking with no parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic completeness but has significant gaps. It states what the tool does and what it returns at a high level, but doesn't provide enough detail about the return format, authentication requirements, or behavioral characteristics for confident agent usage.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema fully documents the empty parameter structure. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 with specific verbs ('Check', 'Returns') and resources ('Modal endpoints', 'endpoint URLs and connection status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on endpoint status rather than video/image analysis capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'list_capabilities' beyond the specific endpoint focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or contrast with sibling tools like 'list_capabilities' that might provide related information. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the tool's stated purpose.

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