vimeo-mcp

Upload a video to Vimeo by giving it a public URL to fetch

upload_video

Send a video from a public URL to Vimeo for fetching and transcoding, returning a video id right away so agents can track it until playback is ready.

Instructions

Upload a video to Vimeo by giving it a public URL to fetch. Vimeo pulls the file itself, so the URL has to be reachable from the internet, not a local path. Returns immediately with a video id while transcoding continues, so the video is not playable straight away. Needs the upload scope.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "upload_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Publicly reachable URL of the video file.
`name`	No	Title for the new video.
`folder_id`	No	Put it straight into this folder.
`description`	No
`privacy_view`	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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, so the safety frame is set; the description adds genuinely new behavior: Vimeo pulls the file server-side, it returns immediately with a video id, transcoding continues asynchronously, and the video is not playable straight away. It also discloses the required OAuth scope, which no annotation covers.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four sentences, each earning its place, with the mechanism and the reachability constraint front-loaded before the async and scope notes. Efficient, though the async/scope details could be tightened slightly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key agent-facing concerns: server-side fetch, immediate return with a video id, deferred playability, and auth scope. Remaining gaps are the optional parameters (folder_id, privacy_view), which are partly documented in the schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description only reinforces the url semantics (publicly reachable from the internet, not a local path) while saying nothing about name, folder_id, description, or privacy_view. The added constraint on url is useful but only lifts one of five parameters, matching the baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (video to Vimeo) plus the mechanism (public URL to fetch), which cleanly separates it from siblings like update_video, delete_video, or add_video_to_showcase. An agent can identify this is the creation path for a new video without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context: the URL must be publicly reachable, not a local path, and notes the upload scope requirement. It does not name alternative upload paths or explicitly state when to prefer this over other video-creation siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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