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 full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or what format the capabilities are returned in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'capabilities' means in this context (e.g., supported video formats, analysis types), how results are structured, or any prerequisites. For a tool in a server with multiple analysis siblings, more context is needed to guide proper use.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema already covers.

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 action ('List') and resource ('capabilities of this video understanding server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'check_endpoint_status' which might also provide server information), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for discovering available features before analysis) or when to choose sibling tools like 'check_endpoint_status' for different server information.

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