Downloads a completed video job by streaming it to a local file, using temporary storage and exclusive renaming and not following external URLs.
Descarrega por streaming um vídeo concluído pelo endpoint autenticado /videos/{id}/content. Usa gravação temporária e renomeação exclusiva; não segue URLs externos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | ||
| job_id | Yes | ||
| filename | No | ||
| output_dir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses streaming behavior, temporary-file-plus-exclusive-rename semantics (implying non-corrupting writes), the authentication requirement of the endpoint, and that external URLs are not followed (a real SSRF-style safety disclosure). It omits permission scopes, overwrite behavior when filename already exists, and error modes, so 4 rather than 5.
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 compact sentences with the core action first and behavioral constraints second; no filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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?
With zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description must do more: it never explains the optional parameters and never says what is returned (a local path? bytes?). Given the structured data provides nothing, this leaves the agent unable to invoke the tool confidently beyond the required job_id.
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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters. The description only implicitly maps job_id to the {id} path segment; it says nothing about index (which video variant), filename (does it override naming?), or output_dir (where files land). An agent must guess at three of four parameters.
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 (streaming download) and resource (a completed video via /videos/{id}/content), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_video_status or generate_video. It never names a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short of 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 precondition 'vídeo concluído' (completed video) implies when the tool is applicable and usefully guards against calling it mid-render. However, it names no alternatives (e.g. why not list_assets) and gives no explicit exclusions or error guidance for incomplete jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.