Submit a video for HappyHorse editing using a prompt and up to five reference images, then receive a task_id to track processing.
Submit HappyHorse video editing with up to five reference images; returns task_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| prompt | Yes | ||
| video_url | Yes | ||
| resolution | No | ||
| reference_urls | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two genuinely behavioral facts: this is an async submission returning a task_id, and reference images are capped at five. It omits cost/rate-limit/permission behavior and what to do with the task_id, leaving real gaps for an unannotated 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?
A single compact sentence with the key facts front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves the semantic gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
Five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations is a heavy documentation burden; the description covers only the async contract and the reference-image cap. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the input semantics are largely undocumented.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it only clarifies reference_urls with a 'up to five' cap. It says nothing about seed, resolution (720P/1080P enum), or what the required video_url and prompt should contain.
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: submitting a HappyHorse video-editing task, and notes it returns a task_id. The tool name plus 'video editing' distinguishes it from edit_image and generate_video, though the description itself never names those siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this versus edit_image or generate_video, and no prerequisites such as whether video_url must first come from upload_media. The async follow-up (polling get_task) is not mentioned, so the agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.