Control HTML5 video and audio playback in the browser with actions for play, pause, toggle, mute, seek, speed, volume, and fullscreen. Retrieve media info or adjust settings on demand.
Control HTML5 video/audio playback: play, pause, toggle, mute, unmute, seek, set_speed, set_volume, fullscreen, exit_fullscreen, get_info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | ||
| action | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 lists actions but does not explain side effects, state changes, whether fullscreen affects the browser or only the video element, what get_info returns, or how actions behave when no video/audio is present.
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 efficient line with the core purpose front-loaded and a comprehensive action list. It contains no filler, though it is essentially a bare enumeration rather than a structured explanation.
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?
For a multi-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important invocation details unstated: value semantics, expected return payloads, and behavioral caveats. An agent could guess the basic actions but would be unable to know correct input formats or what to expect back.
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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the optional 'value' parameter. It does not clarify which actions require a value, whether seek uses seconds or a percentage, or how strings differ from numbers. The action enum is already in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond the structured data.
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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Control HTML5 video/audio playback,' and then enumerates the specific operations it supports. This distinguishes it from the browser-navigation siblings, though it relies heavily on the action list rather than a crisp one-line purpose.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The sibling list contains no other media-control tool, so it is not misleading, but the description leaves all usage decisions to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.