Check whether video editing features such as in-place edit and interval replacement are enabled. Use this to confirm available editing capabilities before starting video production.
查视频编辑能力开关(就地编辑 / 区间替换是否可用)。免费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It strongly implies a read-only availability check via '查...是否可用' and adds a cost signal with '免费.' However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the response format, leaving some behavioral detail implicit.
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 compact sentence with the main action front-loaded, followed by concrete capability examples and a short cost note. Every element earns its place; there is no filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter capability check, this description is nearly complete: an agent can invoke it with no arguments and understand that it reports availability of in-place editing and interval replacement. The main omission is an explicit return format, though '是否可用' reasonably implies a boolean or availability-style result.
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 zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, which matches the zero-parameter design.
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 the verb '查' (check) against a named resource, '视频编辑能力开关' (video editing capability switches), and gives concrete examples: in-place editing and interval replacement. It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from related siblings like get_capabilities_guide or the edit_video_shot family.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no explicit routing such as 'run this before edit_video_shot.' The '免费' note is about cost, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.