search_videosFind videos in your own Vimeo library by title or description. Use queries to locate clips within your account instead of searching all of Vimeo.
Search your own library by title and description. This searches your videos only, not all of Vimeo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | Yes | Search text. | |
| per_page | No |
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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint that matching is limited to the caller's own library and to title/description text. It says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape, so the added behavioral context is modest. Note a mild tension with openWorldHint=true, though a personal video library can reasonably be read as an open data set rather than a contradiction.
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, the scope constraint front-loaded, and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 no-output-schema search tool, the description covers what is searched and where, but omits any hint about pagination of results or how matches are ranked, which matters for a tool with page/per_page parameters. Annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining gap is not severe, but it is real.
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 coverage is only 33% – page and per_page have no descriptions, though their defaults and min/max bounds make them largely self-explanatory. The description does add real meaning for query by stating that matching happens against title and description, which the schema's bare "Search text." does not convey. Baseline 3 is 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 (search videos) plus the matching scope (title and description) and the corpus it operates on (your own library). That is more precise than the title alone. It does not, however, name the sibling it competes with (list_videos for browsing), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
"This searches your videos only, not all of Vimeo" implies when this tool is appropriate (finding your own footage by text) and rules out global Vimeo search. But no alternative is named for the adjacent case of browsing rather than querying, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is implied, not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.