Review every saved caption look and its resolved style from your local library. Use it to locate or verify specific caption styles before applying them to your video timeline.
Every caption look saved to this machine's library, each with what it resolves to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.43.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the context that it is a library of caption looks with resolution behavior ('each with what it resolves to'), which is useful. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate; it adds some behavioral detail but not much beyond that.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the resource. It is efficient, but the phrase 'each with what it resolves to' is a bit cryptic and could be clearer, but it doesn't waste words.
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?
The tool is simple with no params and a rich output schema presumably (has output schema=true). The description doesn't need to explain return values if the output schema covers them. However, given the large sibling set, it could better explain its relationship to related tools and the nature of 'resolution' to be fully complete.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the description carries no param burden. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description provides enough context about the content (caption looks with resolutions) without needing param details. No issue here.
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?
The description says it lists caption looks saved to the library, which is a clear resource. But it doesn't explicitly state the action (list/access) beyond the name, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like caption_style_save or caption_style_load. The phrase 'each with what it resolves to' hints at mapping but is ambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like caption_style or caption_style_load. It implies it's for browsing the library, but doesn't state when to choose it over siblings. A user would have to infer its purpose relative to others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.