Inspect a media file and return a compact summary of its format and streams, so you can identify codecs and container details before transcoding or processing.
Inspect a media file and return a compact summary of its format and streams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| 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 must carry behavioral burden. 'Inspect' and 'return summary' imply a read-only, non-mutating operation with no side effects, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly state permissions or that it only reads, so it partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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 wasted wording. It is appropriately sized, though it omits usage guidance that would strengthen structure.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description states the tool returns format/stream summaries. Still, for an inspection tool with an undocumented 'path' parameter, the description omits expected input format and any read-only confirmation.
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% for the single 'path' parameter, and the description adds no information about its format or expected value. With one undocumented parameter, the description should compensate but does not.
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 uses a specific verb (inspect) and resource (media file) and states what is returned: format and streams. It is fairly distinguishable from siblings like extract_stream or transcode_video, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 alternatives such as list_codecs or extract_stream, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the words 'inspect' and 'return summary'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.