Reject social clips by their IDs to exclude unwanted content from a podcast project.
Reject social clips by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / idsAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Ids",
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / ids_jsonRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Ids Json",
- "type": "string"
-}Input 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "ids_json"
-]New value: +[
+ "ids"
+]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 burden. 'Reject' implies a state-changing operation, but the description omits reversibility, permissions, side effects, and whether rejected clips remain visible or recoverable.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and has no filler or redundancy. However, its extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than a model of efficient completeness.
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 state-changing tool in a crowded social-clip workflow, the description is too thin. It does not explain rejection semantics, interaction with approve/list/export siblings, or the undocumented project_path parameter, though output schema coverage means return values need not be described.
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 two parameters. The description only clarifies that IDs are used, without explaining whether multiple IDs are supported, their expected source, or what the optional project_path parameter does.
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 with target qualifier: 'Reject social clips by id.' This clearly identifies the action, but it does not distinguish the tool from sibling social-clip operations such as approve_social_clips_tool, list_social_clips_tool, or reject_edits_tool.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named. The phrase 'by id' weakly implies IDs come from a listing step, but no explicit workflow guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.