categoriesReturn the full list of top-level Vimeo content categories (e.g. Animation, Comedy, Music) with slugs usable in category_videos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of categories | |
| page | No | Current page | |
| total | No | Total categories | |
| paging | No | Pagination links | |
| per_page | No | Items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of categories",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "link": {
+ "description": "Category link",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "metadata": {
+ "description": "Additional metadata",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Category name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "pictures": {
+ "description": "Category picture data",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "slug": {
+ "description": "Category slug",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "uri": {
+ "description": "Category URI",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "description": "Current page",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "paging": {
+ "description": "Pagination links",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "per_page": {
+ "description": "Items per page",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total categories",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool safe, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying it returns top-level categories only and that slugs are usable downstream.
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 that clearly conveys the tool's purpose and provides relevant examples. No extraneous 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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains the scope (top-level categories) and use of slugs. No additional context is needed.
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 zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain them. The baseline expectation of 4 is met.
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 clearly states that the tool returns the full list of top-level Vimeo content categories, provides examples (e.g. Animation, Comedy, Music), and notes the slugs' usability in the sibling tool 'category_videos'. This distinguishes it from category and category_videos.
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 description implies the tool is for retrieving all top-level categories, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like 'category' or 'category_videos'. However, the context is clear enough given the simplicity of the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, and the polymarket_* family has six tools with blurred boundaries. The Vimeo tools are distinct, but the massive unrelated Pipeworx set creates ambiguity about which tool is appropriate for a given task.
Tool names mix conventions: Vimeo tools use bare nouns (video, channel, user), while Pipeworx tools use verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim) or noun_verb (ai_visibility_check). Some names like ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback do not follow a consistent verb-first pattern.
40 tools is far too many for a Vimeo server; only 9 tools are Vimeo-related, and the remaining 31 are an unrelated Pipeworx data toolkit. This inflates the surface area and makes the set unwieldy.
The Vimeo surface covers read operations (search, get, list) but lacks any write operations like upload, update, or delete videos. It also misses common Vimeo features like comments, likes, or portfolio management, so common tasks would hit dead ends.