Video Fetch MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets video information without downloading, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what specific information is returned. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, clear phrase: '获取视频信息（不下载）'. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and a key constraint, with zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving video info), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., metadata, duration, format), potential errors, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'list_tasks'. This leaves the AI agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'url' clearly documented as '视频链接URL' (video link URL). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on URL formats, supported platforms, or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('视频信息' meaning 'video information'), and explicitly distinguishes it from downloading ('不下载' meaning 'not download'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task_status' which might also retrieve information, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 by specifying 'not download', suggesting this tool is for metadata retrieval rather than file acquisition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'download_video' or 'list_tasks', nor does it provide context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.