@runapi.ai/gemini-omni-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'look up,' suggesting it is read-only, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, return format, or whether results are cached. The agent gains no explicit behavioral safety guarantees.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no redundant wording and every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (two optional params, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the response looks like, which is essential since no output schema exists. It also lacks any mention of how the result might be used in conjunction with sibling tools. It is adequate for a basic read, but incomplete for operational use.

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%, with both parameters (model and action) having enum descriptions. The tool description adds no information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate—it neither harms nor helps beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Look up'), a specific resource ('RunAPI pricing'), and a specific scope ('gemini-omni model line'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like create_audio and text_to_video, which perform content creation, while check_pricing is a read-only query.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the named siblings (e.g., when to query pricing before creating a task). It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The context is only implied by the tool name and purpose.

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

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

The description discloses that the operation is synchronous and returns the operation result, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, or error behavior, leaving a moderate gap given the absence of annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the action and following with return behavior. It contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

With no output schema, the description's mention of returning the operation result is useful but underspecified. It does not clarify the result structure or common use cases, leaving the description only partially complete for a 5-parameter tool.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 specifies a synchronous Gemini Omni operation, with the parenthetical 'create audio' clarifying the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from siblings like text_to_video and create_character, though the generic verb 'run' and lack of explicit 'preset' wording slightly reduce specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (create_character, text_to_video), but the description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'synchronous' and 'returns the operation result', which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, cost implications, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool that likely creates a resource and may incur charges, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action ('Run a synchronous Gemini Omni operation'). It wastes no words, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It tells the agent the operation is synchronous and returns a result, but it does not explain the relationship between audio_ids and create-audio, the need for a public URL, or what the result contains. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 six parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Run'), a resource ('Gemini Omni operation on RunAPI'), and the operation's purpose ('create character'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like create_audio or text_to_video beyond the 'create character' phrase.

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 implies usage by naming the operation ('create character') and the platform (RunAPI), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_audio or text_to_video. The schema provides required parameters (descriptions, reference_image_url) which hint at prerequisites, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read operation (fetch) but does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, or error conditions. Adequate for a simple fetch but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no unnecessary words. Highly concise and efficient.

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 the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is sufficient but could be improved by hinting at the return format or any important limitations. Not incomplete, but not rich.

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%, and the description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches current status and latest result payload for a gemini-omni task, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like text_to_video which creates tasks.

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 alternatives, such as checking task status versus creating a new task. The agent must infer usage from context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the interactive browser flow and the file write side effect (config.json). However, it does not mention that it may overwrite existing credentials or that it could block waiting for user input, though these are implied.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Authenticate RunAPI') and provides necessary details without extraneous information.

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 login tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and side effect. It lacks an explicit statement that this is a prerequisite for other tools, but that is implied.

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% (the only parameter 'force' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('Authenticate'), target resource ('RunAPI'), method ('browser PKCE login flow'), and side effect (saving to config.json). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which relate to authentication.

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 implies usage (to authenticate RunAPI) but does not explicitly say when to run it (e.g., before other RunAPI tools) or when to use the 'force' parameter. Since there are no alternative auth tools among siblings, 'vs alternatives' is not applicable.

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

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 reveals that a task is created and that the return includes a task id, status, and output URLs, hinting at asynchronous execution. However, it omits cost/quota implications, reference-unit consumption, the effect of the wait flag, and whether output URLs are durable, leaving partial transparency.

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 two-clause sentence that efficiently captures purpose, modality, and return contract with no filler. 'On RunAPI' and 'Returns a task id, status, and output URLs' both add value beyond the tool name and schema. It is short and front-loaded.

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?

This tool has 16 parameters with intricate constraints (mutual exclusion of first-frame image, shared seven-unit reference limits, clip timing rules, webhooks, and polling), yet the description only covers a trivial text-to-video case. It also does not mention that the returned task id should be consumed by get_task. With no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin for safe invocation of the tool's advanced modes.

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 description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. Schema description coverage is 88%, which sets the baseline at 3; the schema does the heavy lifting for parameters. The description does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters (timeout_ms, poll_interval_ms), but it does not need to given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Create'), resource ('Gemini Omni task on RunAPI'), and domain ('text to video'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_audio and create_character. The mention of RunAPI and Gemini Omni goes beyond the tool name, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description only implies that this tool is for generating video from a text prompt and does not mention that get_task is the companion for polling or that create_character/create_audio are alternatives for other modalities. This is implied usage, not active routing.

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