Inspect HTML5 video/audio elements and WebRTC streams to check playback quality, buffer health, and telemetry for debugging streaming issues. Use an optional CSS selector to target elements.
Inspect HTML5 video/audio elements and WebRTC streams with playback quality and buffer health telemetry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | No | Optional CSS selector for targeted media element (e.g. "video#hero", "audio") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only vaguely mentions 'playback quality and buffer health telemetry' without stating whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an inspection 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key telemetry aspects without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a high-level idea of the return value ('playback quality and buffer health telemetry') but lacks specifics on the data structure or behavioral traits. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete given the absence 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?
The input schema fully documents the single optional 'selector' parameter with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('HTML5 video/audio elements and WebRTC streams') with additional context about telemetry. It clearly identifies the tool's focus, though it does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like observe_media_events or capture_video_frame.
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 alternatives. It implies the tool is for inspecting media streams but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit comparisons to sibling tools such as vibeside_observe_media_events or vibeside_capture_video_frame.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.