Retrieve recent video tasks with costs, filter by model or status, and paginate to monitor generations and spending.
Recent video tasks on this key, newest first, with what each one cost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| page_size | No |
| 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 carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first') and that per-task cost is included, but says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination behavior, default page size, or result limits, which an agent needs for a paged listing.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource, scope, ordering, and return content front-loaded; no filler whatsoever.
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?
The output schema covers return values and cost, so that is not a gap. However, with no annotations and four entirely undocumented parameters, the description leaves filtering and pagination behavior unexplained for an agent that must decide how to page and filter.
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% across four parameters. The description mentions 'recent' which hints at ordering, but never explains 'page', 'page_size' (with its 100 max), or that 'model' and 'status' act as filters — a significant omission at 0% 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('list ... video tasks'), plus scope ('on this key') and ordering ('newest first'). It clearly differs from the singular siblings 'video_task' and 'generate_video', but never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 implies a browse-recent-history use case but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing it over 'video_task' (single fetch) or 'spend_status' (cost aggregation), and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.