Generates short animated educational videos from a topic or idea by writing a script, generating narrated scene clips, and stitching them into an MP4.
Generate short animated educational videos from a topic or idea. AI writes the script, generates scene-by-scene clips with narrated audio using Seedance, and stitches them into a complete MP4. (~20 credits)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duration | Yes | ||
| userInput | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal pipeline (script -> clips -> narration -> MP4), which is genuine behavioral context, and states a credit cost. It omits generation latency, whether jobs are async, and whether output persists, so for a multi-stage media generator this is only adequate.
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?
Three sentences front-load the purpose and then the pipeline, with no filler. It is efficient, though the credit note is minor and could be trimmed.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and completely undocumented parameters. For a costly, multi-stage video generator, the description explains the process but leaves the inputs an agent must supply entirely unspecified.
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 coverage is 0% and both parameters are undocumented; the description never mentions userInput or duration, nor the accepted duration units or format. With two required params at zero coverage the description must compensate and 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Generate short animated educational videos') and elaborates the pipeline (script, scene clips, narrated audio, MP4 stitch). It is distinguishable from the plain video and image siblings, which produce static visuals without an educational script-to-MP4 pipeline.
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 from a topic or idea, but never states when to prefer this over aaddyy_seedance_video_generator or aaddyy_article_generator, nor any exclusions. The pipeline hints at the use case, but routing guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.