Video Enhancement MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema).

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, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that queries task status. It doesn't explain what status information is returned (e.g., progress percentage, completion state, error messages), making it inadequate for an agent to understand the full context of use.

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 100% with the single parameter 'task_id' well-documented as '任务ID' (task ID). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, source of task_id, or validation rules), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 '查询视频增强任务状态' clearly states the purpose as querying video enhancement task status, which is a specific verb (query) + resource (video enhancement task status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_task' (creation) and 'enhance_video_sync' (synchronous enhancement), but doesn't explicitly differentiate beyond the different action verbs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a task_id from create_task), when-not scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like checking if enhance_video_sync might provide status differently.

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