VidLens

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compareShortsVsLong

Compare YouTube Shorts and long-form video performance to analyze channel metrics and generate data-driven content format mix recommendations.

Instructions

Compare recent Shorts vs long-form performance for a channel and suggest a format mix. [~3-10s]

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": {
      "channelIdOrHandleOrUrl": "<channelIdOrHandleOrUrl>"
    },
    "name": "compareShortsVsLong"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`channelIdOrHandleOrUrl`	Yes
`lookbackDays`	No
`dryRun`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.8Apr 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions output ('suggest a format mix') and includes a cryptic latency hint '[~3-10s]', but critically fails to clarify the presence of 'dryRun' parameter — leaving ambiguity whether this tool performs read-only analysis or modifies channel settings when dryRun=false.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately concise and front-loaded, but the bracketed notation '[~3-10s]' is structurally cryptic and unexplained (execution time estimate? Shorts duration reference?), creating confusion rather than clarity.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter documentation, output format details, and behavioral constraints necessary for safe invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description completely fails to compensate: 'channelIdOrHandleOrUrl' accepts multiple formats (ID/handle/URL) not explained; 'lookbackDays' range implications unstated; 'dryRun' purpose (preventing modifications?) is undocumented despite being critical for safe invocation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool 'Compare[s] recent Shorts vs long-form performance for a channel and suggest[s] a format mix' — specific verb (compare), specific resource (Shorts vs long-form performance), and distinct scope from siblings like analyzeVideoSet or inspectChannel.

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 provided on when to use this versus alternatives like analyzeVideoSet or inspectChannel. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., channel authorization) or when the format mix suggestion is applicable.

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