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. It describes the output styles but lacks critical details such as whether the tool requires authentication, handles errors, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., text, structured data). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear, bulleted list of style options. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (summarizing video content) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, performance expectations, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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 documents both parameters ('video_url' and 'style') with descriptions. The description adds value by elaborating on the 'style' parameter with specific definitions for 'brief', 'standard', and 'detailed', but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema offers for 'video_url'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Generate a summary of a video' with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('video'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_video' or 'extract_video_text', which might also involve video processing but with different outputs.

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 like 'analyze_video' or 'video_qa'. It lists style options but doesn't explain scenarios where one style is preferable over another, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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