VAP Media · Unified MCP Server for AI Agents (Flux · Veo · Suno)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's an async operation ('Returns a task ID for async tracking'), has a monetary cost ('Cost: $1.96'), and provides important input constraints. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers essential operational aspects.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important operational details (async nature, cost) and critical constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient for agent comprehension.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the tool's purpose, cost, async nature, and critical input constraints. It doesn't explain return values or error conditions, but given the schema's comprehensive parameter documentation, it's reasonably complete for agent usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the critical constraint about the prompt parameter ('Send ONLY the video description...') which adds value beyond the schema, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for other parameters like duration or aspect ratio beyond what's already in their schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Generate an AI video from text prompt') and resource ('using VAP (Veo 3.1)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_image and generate_music. It explicitly identifies the tool's function as video generation from text prompts.

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 about when to use this tool (for AI video generation from text prompts) and includes important usage constraints ('IMPORTANT: Send ONLY the video description...'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools like generate_image for different media types.

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