Lists available video templates—including quotes, hooks, listicles, stories, product showcases, testimonials, and promos—and shows their editable fields for video creation.
List available video templates (quotes, hooks, listicles, stories, product showcases, testimonials, promos). Each template describes its editable fields — use them with create_video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by template category |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds workflow context beyond that: templates expose editable fields that feed create_video, which tells the agent what to do with the result. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, keeping it from a 5.
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?
Two tight sentences, with the resource and its categories front-loaded and the downstream action second. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler wording.
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 single optional-filter list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is listed, what each item contains, and what to do next. It could say whether results are ordered or filtered by default, but no agent-critical detail is missing.
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 single `category` parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the load. The description never mentions filtering by category, though the parenthetical category names loosely hint at valid values; baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List available video templates") and enumerates the concrete categories returned (quotes, hooks, listicles, stories, product showcases, testimonials, promos). That enumeration clearly separates it from sibling listers such as list_carousel_styles or list_media without needing the schema.
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 clause "use them with create_video" gives an explicit downstream use and implies this is a discovery step before video creation. It does not state when-not to use it or compare against the other template/style listers, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.