get_video_statsRetrieve lifetime play count, comment total, and like total for a Vimeo video on any plan.
Get a video's lifetime play count plus its comment and like totals. This works on every plan. For views over time, finish rate and geography use get_video_analytics, which needs a paid plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes | Video id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact the annotations cannot express: this tool is available on every plan tier, while the analytics sibling requires a paid plan. It does not discuss rate limits or response shape, but the plan constraint is the meaningful extra here.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The return content is front-loaded and the routing alternative follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant information comes first.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, availability constraints, and the richer alternative for time-series/geographic data. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.
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 100% for the single video_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-source detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what is returned (lifetime play count, comment totals, like totals). It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_video_analytics, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.
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?
States the condition for use ('works on every plan') and names the alternative with its own condition ('For views over time, finish rate and geography use get_video_analytics, which needs a paid plan'). Both the when and the when-not are explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.