Lists all background music file names available in the music folder, returning the file list and directory path for use in video creation.
List all available BGM files in the music folder.
Returns: A dict containing: - bgm_files: List of available BGM file names - bgm_dir: Path to the BGM directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (dict with bgm_files and bgm_dir) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or any permissions needed. It adds some transparency about output, but lacks explicit safety/behavioral affirmations.
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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear return-value listing. Every part earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded and the return structure is organized.
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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does and precisely what it returns (the dictionary keys and their meanings). No additional information is necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%) and there is nothing for the description to explain. According to the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the score is 4. The description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter details.
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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('BGM files'), with a clear location ('music folder'). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like create_video_from_xhs and get_video_config, which are about video creation and configuration.
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 description implies usage: if you need available BGM files and their directory, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. Guidance is absent, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.