get_mediaVerify an uploaded image or video is ready to publish, and check its size and length before posting.
Check an uploaded image or video: whether it is ready to publish (videos are processed for a minute or two after upload_media), its size and length.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_id | Yes | The id upload_media returned. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: video processing introduces an asynchronous delay before content is publishable. It does not discuss behavior for invalid or expired media IDs, so it is not fully complete.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the action and the primary question (readiness), then adds the processing-timing caveat and the secondary return fields. No wasted 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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming what comes back (readiness, size, length). For a single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, that covers everything an agent needs to invoke it, though error/not-found behavior is unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'The id upload_media returned.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Check') and resource (an uploaded image or video) plus the fields inspected: readiness to publish, size, and length. It clearly differs from upload_media, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_post or recent_posts.
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?
Gives clear context for when this is needed: after uploading, to confirm a video has finished processing ('a minute or two after upload_media'). It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which keeps it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.