list_chaptersRetrieve a Vimeo video's chapters in timecode order to map segments shown on the player scrubber. Use a video ID to inspect chapter timestamps and navigation points.
List a video's chapters in timecode order. Chapters show as segments on the player scrubber.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering behavior and the product framing ('segments on the player scrubber'), but says nothing about empty results, pagination, or permission requirements.
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 short sentences with the operation and its ordering front-loaded. The second sentence is partly decorative but does orient the agent to what a chapter represents, so it earns most of its place.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at the returned shape (timecodes, titles, count) or the no-chapters case. What is present is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no format, source, or lookup detail for video_id, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List a video's chapters') plus an ordering guarantee ('in timecode order'), which separates it from the write siblings add_chapter/update_chapter/delete_chapter. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent still infers the read-vs-write split from the 'List' prefix.
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 reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_transcript or get_video, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a valid video_id is required and what happens when a video has no chapters). Usage is implied by the name only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.