short_video_privacy_auditIdentify safety risks in prompts, assets, outputs, and provider keys to prevent exposure during short-form AI video creation.
Return prompt, asset, output and provider-key safety boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds that it returns safety boundaries but does not provide additional behavioral context such as response format or error behavior. With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise (one sentence) but its structure is somewhat awkward; the phrase 'safety boundaries' is not clarified, and the list of items is run-on. It earns its place but could be more precise.
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 simple tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning the response_format parameter and the structure of the returned safety boundaries. Currently, the agent must guess the return format.
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 input schema has one parameter (response_format) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the enum values alone. This is insufficient.
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 uses a verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('safety boundaries' for prompt, asset, output, provider-key), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with manifest, payload, connection, and generation. However, the term 'safety boundaries' is somewhat ambiguous, leaving some room for interpretation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools; the context is implied by the tool name but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.