Video Metadata 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 reads metadata but does not specify what '完整元数据信息' includes (e.g., format, duration, resolution), whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential errors (e.g., file not found), or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured if it included usage context or output details.

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 (reading metadata from files), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what metadata is returned, how it's formatted, or any limitations (e.g., supported video formats), making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 'filePath' clearly documented as '视频文件的完整路径' (complete path to the video file). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as file format support or path validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 action ('读取' meaning 'read') and resource ('视频文件的完整元数据信息' meaning 'complete metadata information of video files'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_videos' or 'update_video_metadata', which might also involve metadata access or modification, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 does not mention when to choose it over 'search_videos' for metadata retrieval or 'update_video_metadata' for modifications, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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