Add or preview ingestion of an X (Twitter) video into podcast processing. Use confirm=false to check public metadata without writing; set confirm=true to create ingestion.
Side-effect tool：confirm=false 是 preview（零寫入，會讀公開 metadata）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| force | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most safety-critical trait: confirm=false is a zero-write preview mode that reads public metadata, while the tool itself is a side-effect operation. However, it stays silent on what confirm=true actually writes, what force does, and whether ingestion is idempotent or rate-limited — notable omissions for a mutation 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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the risk class ('Side-effect tool') before the preview semantics, with zero wasted words. Each phrase earns its place, though the extreme brevity means there is minimal content to 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?
A side-effect tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage needs substantially more than one sentence. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the undocumented url/force/title semantics and the absence of any differentiation from ingest_youtube_video leave the definition materially incomplete for safe invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence, but it only explains one of four parameters: confirm. The url, force, and title parameters receive no semantic explanation at all, leaving an agent to guess at URL format requirements and the meaning of force and title.
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 labels the tool 'Side-effect tool' and explains the confirm flag's preview behavior, but never states what it actually does — ingesting an X/Twitter video — or what the ingestion accomplishes. The core purpose is only recoverable from the tool name, not from the description itself, which makes this closer to a tautology than a real purpose statement.
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 given on when to use this tool versus the closely related sibling ingest_youtube_video or any of the other ingestion/search tools. The only conditional hint, that confirm=false corresponds to preview, is a safety instruction about a flag rather than a when-to-use selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.