Tennis Evolution

by bobobo2026

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Self-check a finished video

verify_video

Read-only

Checks a video file for clean decoding, zero start offset, matching audio/video duration, non-black first and last frames, and non-silent audio to catch corrupted or misaligned outputs.

Instructions

Clean decode, zero start offset, A/V duration match, non-black first/last frame, non-silent audio.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "verify_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fast`	No
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a self-check, so no contradiction. The list of failure criteria is genuine context beyond the annotations, but the description never says what the tool reports (pass/fail per check? aggregate?), how costly it is, or what the 'fast' flag trades off.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short, but the brevity comes at the cost of being a verbless fragment rather than a front-loaded statement. Every criterion earns its place, yet the sentence lacks the framing that would make it self-explanatory.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, the description is the only place to explain the result shape (per-criterion results, thresholds, pass/fail) and the fast mode, and it does neither. For a verification tool whose entire value is its verdict, that is a significant omission.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. The 'path' argument and especially the 'fast' boolean mode are completely undocumented anywhere, and the description does nothing to compensate for that gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description is a bare list of check criteria (clean decode, A/V duration match, non-black frames, non-silent audio) with no verb or stated object, so the action must be inferred from the name and title. It conveys what the tool inspects but never says it verifies a video file, nor does it separate it from the sibling probe_video.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this versus probe_video, which appears in the sibling list and sounds closely related. Only the title's phrase 'finished video' hints at a usage context, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server