viber-mcp

send_video

Send a video message to a Viber user by providing the receiver's ID, video URL, and file size. Optionally set duration, thumbnail, and sender details.

Instructions

Send a video to a Viber user

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "receiver": "<receiver>",
      "media": "<media>",
      "size": "<size>"
    },
    "name": "send_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`receiver`	Yes	Viber user ID of the receiver
`media`	Yes	Public URL of the video (MP4/H.264, ≤26MB, ≤180s)
`size`	Yes	Video size in bytes
`duration`	No	Video duration in seconds
`thumbnail`	No	Thumbnail URL
`sender_name`	No	Display name override (≤28 chars)
`sender_avatar`	No	Avatar URL override

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention that the video must meet format/size constraints, that the message is private, or any potential side effects like delivery status.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise but under-specified. While it has no wasted words, it fails to include necessary context, making it somewhat insufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it properly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the delivery process, error scenarios, or how the video is displayed to the user.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the description does not need to add further meaning. It neither detracts nor adds value beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action (send) and resource (video) to a Viber user, which distinguishes it from siblings like send_picture or send_file. However, it is not explicit about when to choose this tool over others.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_picture or send_file. The description lacks context about the type of video allowed or the user's requirement for URLs.

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

Deploy Server