Prepares an MP4 video and optional comment for setlog posting, returning the destination, body, and preparation ID without sending the post.
絶対パスのMP4と任意のコメントを準備する。投稿先・本文・準備IDを返し、送信はしない。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | ||
| video_path | Yes | ||
| collection_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, is not idempotent, is open-world, and is non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by clarifying that no send occurs and that the result includes destination, body, and a preparation ID. It does not mention authorization needs or limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 two tightly packed sentences with the main action and the no-send constraint front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully explained, and the annotations cover safety characteristics. Still, for a three-parameter preparation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the unexplained required collection_id leaves the definition only partially complete.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that video_path must be an absolute MP4 path and that comment is optional, but the required collection_id parameter is never explained as an input, leaving a significant gap.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: preparing an MP4 at an absolute path with an optional comment. It also states what is returned and explicitly says it does not send, which distinguishes it from send_prepared_video.
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 phrase '送信はしない' makes the preparation-only scope clear and implies that sending belongs to a sibling such as send_prepared_video. However, it does not explicitly compare against prepare_video_batch or state when batch preparation is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.