create_ai_music_videoTurn a song and one singer photo into a finished lip-synced, beat-cut music video. Get the link and steps; no uploads required.
How to turn a song and one photo of the singer into a finished, lip-synced, beat-cut music video with AIMusicVideoGen (web app, paid credits). Returns the link and the steps; it does not upload anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses a paid-credit cost model, that the tool is a web app, that it returns the link and steps, and — importantly — that it does not upload anything, bounding side effects. It omits expected latency or failure/retry behavior, but the cost and side-effect disclosures exceed the norm.
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?
One dense sentence with the outcome, provider, cost, and side-effect constraint front-loaded and no padding. It is slightly run-on, but every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it produces (link and steps) and the key constraint (no upload, paid credits). Enough for an agent to decide and call it; only the pipeline relationship to sibling tools is left implicit.
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?
Parameter count is zero, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly does not invent any input arguments.
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 concrete verb and outcome: turning a song plus one photo into a finished, lip-synced, beat-cut music video via AIMusicVideoGen. It implies this is the creation step relative to siblings like analyze_song and plan_music_video, though it never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: the web-app framing, 'paid credits', and the note that it 'does not upload anything' hint at prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use versus plan_music_video or analyze_song, so the agent must infer the ordering of the pipeline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.