vimeo-mcp

List embed presets

list_embed_presets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve saved embed presets to inspect player colors, controls, and branding settings before applying them to Vimeo videos.

Instructions

List your saved embed presets, which control player colors, controls and branding.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_embed_presets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`per_page`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.0Oct 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.0.1Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 fully covered without the description. The description's added value is the domain context of what a preset contains, but it says nothing about pagination or result-set size even though per_page exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb+resource lead and the clarifying clause follows immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. Its gap is that per_page signals a paginated collection but the description never explains paging behavior or how many presets to expect.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (per_page) is never mentioned in the description. The schema supplies only type/default/bounds (1-100, default 25), so the description fails to compensate for the missing semantic explanation of paging.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List your saved embed presets') and adds what the resource is ('control player colors, controls and branding'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling apply_embed_preset or note that this is the read-side companion to it.

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 when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative is given. The agent must infer that this is the lookup step before apply_embed_preset; the description never says so or names that sibling.

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