Qwen Video Understanding MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what the tool does conceptually, it lacks important behavioral details: it doesn't specify what the tool returns (output format), whether it processes the entire video or specific frames, performance characteristics, or any limitations. For a video analysis tool with no annotations, this represents significant gaps in behavioral 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?

The description is extremely well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides a bulleted list of use cases. Every sentence earns its place, there's no redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately. This is an excellent example of efficient documentation.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context for this video analysis tool. While it explains what the tool does conceptually, it doesn't describe what the tool returns, how it processes the video, any limitations or requirements, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured metadata, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 already fully documents both parameters (video_url and comparison_prompt). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 as analyzing changes and progression across a video, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'analyze_video' or 'summarize_video', which likely have overlapping functionality. The description provides a clear general purpose but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 'Useful for:' section provides clear context about when to use this tool (before/after comparisons, tracking movement, understanding progression, analyzing tutorials). This gives good guidance on appropriate use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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