Statonic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's dual-mode behavior (returning unanalyzed clips initially, then saving metadata on subsequent calls) and mentions the managed library path, which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'unanalyzed' means operationally, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the two-step workflow, and the third clarifies the convenience aspect. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for a 5.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage workflow but lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects, return values, or error conditions. For a tool with mutation capabilities (implied by saving metadata) and no structured safety hints, this leaves room for improvement.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies that 'clip_id' is optional and that 'metadata' is used for saving analysis results, but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 the tool's purpose: analyzing clips in Statonic's app library and returning unanalyzed clips for Claude to analyze. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and resource 'clips in Statonic's app library', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_video_clip' or 'search_statonic_library', which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for analyzing the app's managed clip library without specifying full paths. It mentions calling it again with metadata to save after analysis, which implies a workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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