short_video_agent_manifestRetrieve install, provider, runtime, and safety guidance in JSON or markdown to configure AI agents for short-form video creation across multiple providers.
Machine-readable install, provider, runtime and safety guidance for agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | generic | |
| response_format | No | json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the context of being machine-readable but does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover, such as side effects or response characteristics.
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 description is very concise (one short sentence), but it lacks essential details about parameters and usage. It is front-loaded but not fully informative, earning a middle score for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters or provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional knowledge.
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?
The description does not mention the parameters 'client' or 'response_format' at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving an agent without guidance on how to use these optional parameters.
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?
The description clearly states it provides machine-readable install, provider, runtime, and safety guidance, which is specific. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and does not directly distinguish from sibling tools, though the resource is sufficiently clear.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like short_video_build_payload or short_video_privacy_audit. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.