Distributed Video QA MCP

List download options for a URL

video_probe

Read-only

Inspect a video link before downloading to preview its title, length, available qualities, file sizes, and whether audio is included or must be merged.

Instructions

Show what a link offers before downloading: title, length, and each quality with its size and whether it has sound on its own or needs the audio track merged in (most qualities above 360p do).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "video_probe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) link to a single video.
`all_formats`	No	Also return every raw stream.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The site's id for the video.
`title`	Yes	Video title.
`formats`	No	Every raw stream, when all_formats is set.
`is_live`	Yes	Live streams cannot be ingested.
`duration`	Yes	Length in seconds.
`uploader`	Yes	Channel or uploader name.
`extractor`	Yes	yt-dlp extractor that handled the URL, such as 'Youtube'.
`qualities`	Yes	Best first, one entry per available height.
`thumbnail`	Yes	Thumbnail image URL.
`upload_date`	Yes	YYYYMMDD.
`webpage_url`	Yes	Canonical page URL.
`audio_tracks`	Yes	Best audio streams first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real domain context beyond them: qualities carry size, and most above 360p need the audio track merged in. That is an unusual, non-obvious return characteristic worth surfacing. It omits anything about fetch latency or failure modes on unreachable links, which keeps it off a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the payload front-loaded and the audio caveat in a parenthetical where it belongs. No wasted clauses, though the nested enumeration of fields makes it slightly dense to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still summarizes the shape of the result and flags the merge caveat an agent would otherwise misread. For a two-parameter read-only probe, nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters — url and all_formats — are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about all_formats (returning every raw stream), so it sits at the baseline for a fully described schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb and resource: it shows what a link offers (title, length, per-quality size and audio status) without downloading. The phrase 'before downloading' implicitly separates it from video_download, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Show what a link offers before downloading' gives clear situational context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming video_download/video_info as the alternative, so it falls just below a full routing statement.

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