Generate short-form social clip proposals from a podcast project for a chosen platform, limited to max_clips.
Propose short-form social clips for a platform, limited to max_clips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | No | ||
| max_clips | No | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It doesn't say whether proposals are drafts pending approval, whether generation is deterministic or costly, or what state is changed, and the project_path input's role is left unexplained.
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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but as written it wastes nothing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke the tool confidently, especially regarding the unexplained project_path and the outcome of a 'proposal'.
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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only illuminates max_clips (a cap) and vaguely 'a platform'; project_path is entirely unexplained and no formats or valid values are given for any parameter.
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 (propose) and resource (short-form social clips) and names the platform and max_clips scoping. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the list/approve/reject/export social clip siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (approve_social_clips_tool, reject_social_clips_tool, list_social_clips_tool) it should be sequenced with. The agent must infer that this is the generation step of a propose/approve/export workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.