media_probeInspect a public media URL for HTTPS, HEAD support, range support, content type, and size before Buffer publishing. Confirms the endpoint answers HEAD instead of returning 404.
Check HTTPS, HEAD support, range support, content type and size of a public media URL. Buffer requires an HTTPS URL whose endpoint answers HEAD instead of returning 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public media URL to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the specific checks performed (HEAD reachability, byte-range support, content type, size) and the precondition that non-HTTPS or 404-on-HEAD endpoints will not satisfy Buffer. It stops short of describing failure output or how the combined result is reported.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the list of checks, with no filler. The second sentence is compact though slightly compressed in its phrasing about Buffer's requirement.
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 one-parameter probe with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the probe inspects and the precondition for a usable URL, so an agent can judge when a result will be useful. It does not describe the shape of the probe result, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Public media URL to inspect'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's use of 'public media URL' is consistent but adds no format, scheme, or size constraints beyond the schema and the HTTPS note.
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?
Uses a specific verb (check/probe) against a clear resource (a public media URL) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: HTTPS, HEAD support, range support, content type and size. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling media_preflight, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
The second sentence gives a precondition (Buffer needs an HTTPS URL whose endpoint answers HEAD rather than 404), which implies the tool is a validation step before Buffering media. However, it never states when to use this versus media_preflight or any other sibling, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.