Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
video-sense

video-sense

by znplusW
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

video_help

Read-only

Read the standalone video-sense guide covering call flows, output meanings, same-source subtitle retrieval, optional ASR configuration and limitations; tool schemas define parameters.

Instructions

Read the standalone MCP guide: call flows, output meanings, same-source subtitle retrieval, optional ASR configuration and limitations. No Skill is required. Tool schemas are authoritative for parameters.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "video_help"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a guide with no Skill prerequisite, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about the shape, length, or format of what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a compact topical list, plus one clarifying clause. Nothing is redundant, though the enumerations are slightly dense and could be trimmed without loss.

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 zero-parameter, read-only doc tool with no output schema, listing the covered topics is the right substitute for describing return values. Only the response format and rough size of the guide are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The closing note that 'tool schemas are authoritative for parameters' is a helpful pointer telling the agent not to expect argument details from the guide itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the standalone MCP guide') and enumerates the guide's contents. An agent immediately knows this is a documentation-read tool rather than an operational video/audio tool, so no sibling differentiation is needed beyond the obvious name contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs orientation on call flows, output meanings, subtitles, or ASR. There is no explicit 'call this before X' or 'do not call when Y' guidance, only the clarifying note that no Skill is required and that schemas are authoritative for parameters.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools