Generate format-specific packaging and playback checks from a selected template, so you can verify source, MP4, WebM, and PNG exports before delivery.
Return format-specific packaging and playback checks grounded in a selected template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| formats | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read operation, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the idea that output is derived from a selected template, but says nothing about return shape, permissions, or rate behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the resource and scope lead.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It leaves undefined what a 'check' comprises, how formats affect output, and why a template must be supplied.
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 carries the burden. It loosely gestures at the formats parameter via 'format-specific' and at the required id via 'selected template', but never explains the id pattern, the enum values (source/mp4/webm/png), the default set, or what selection produces.
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 clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('format-specific packaging and playback checks'), scoped to a selected template. It is distinguishable from validation siblings like validate_asset_manifest, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The phrase 'grounded in a selected template' only hints at a prerequisite (a template id) without stating conditions for selecting this tool over the audit/validation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.