Submit up to 1,000 video URLs in one batch to create bulk transcription jobs, reusing existing transcripts and returning a job ID for tracking.
Submit up to 1,000 video URLs as a batch. The account tier sets the actual batch limit; each new video costs 1 credit. Existing transcripts are reused. Returns a bulk job ID. Requires an API key or additional batch transcription consent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) but say nothing about cost or consent. The description supplies the missing operational context: 1 credit per new video, tier-dependent batch ceiling, reuse of existing transcripts, and the API-key/consent gate. It does not explain what 'destructive' means here (credit consumption, job side effects) or how to track the returned job.
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?
Five short sentences, all carrying distinct information (limit, cost, reuse, return value, auth), with the core action front-loaded. Dense and waste-free, though slightly staccato and fragmentary.
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 output schema exists, so the description correctly states the return value ('a bulk job ID'). Combined with cost, reuse, tier limits, and the auth gate, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly; only polling/status follow-up is unaddressed, and list_jobs sibling likely covers that.
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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It confirms the 1,000-URL ceiling (matching maxItems) and adds the credit cost per URL, but says nothing about URL validity constraints or what happens on partial failure within the array.
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 and resource ('Submit ... video URLs as a batch') and the scale (up to 1,000), which signals it is the plural counterpart to transcribe_video without naming it. Clear enough to route correctly, but the sibling differentiation is implied by 'batch' rather than stated.
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 word 'batch' implies when to use this over transcribe_video, and it names a prerequisite ('Requires an API key or additional batch transcription consent'), but it never states the condition for choosing bulk over single submission or when this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.