Video Metadata MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions searching '符合条件的' (meaning 'matching conditions') but doesn't specify search behavior (e.g., recursive vs. shallow, case sensitivity, performance characteristics, or error handling). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical operational aspects undocumented.

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 in Chinese that front-loads the core purpose. There's zero wasted verbiage—every word contributes to stating what the tool does. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward search function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search tool with complex filtering options (nested 'options' object), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format (e.g., list of file paths, metadata), search scope, or error cases. For a tool with 2 parameters (one nested) and rich filtering capabilities, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('directory' and 'options' with its sub-properties). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering via '符合条件的'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('搜索' meaning 'search') and resource ('视频文件' meaning 'video files') with a scope ('在指定目录中' meaning 'in a specified directory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_video_metadata' or 'add_video_tags' by focusing on file search rather than metadata operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar search tools (e.g., 'search_videos_by_metadata'), 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read_video_metadata' for single-file inspection or 'batch_update_metadata' for modifications. There's no context about prerequisites (e.g., directory accessibility) or limitations (e.g., search depth).

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