Morpha

update_audio_overlay

Patch an existing audio overlay. Only the fields you pass are changed. Pass endFrame:null to clear it (revert to natural-length playback).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`gain`	No	Linear gain 0..2.
`endFrame`	No	End frame, or null to clear and use the asset's natural length.
`filename`	No
`projectId`	Yes	Opaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates.
`startFrame`	No
`fadeInFrames`	No
`fadeOutFrames`	No
`sourceLayerId`	No	Weld the overlay to a video layer ("video.<id>") so it renders as a clip footer and drags with the clip, or null to detach it back into a standalone track.
`denoiseStrength`	No	Clean-strength wet/dry mix 0..1 for an overlay with an AI-cleaned track: 1 = fully cleaned, 0 = fully original, between = blend. null clears it (full clean). Ignored while the Original track is selected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only passed fields are changed and that endFrame:null clears the value, which is important mutation semantics. It does not mention errors, authentication, or side effects, but the disclosed partial-update behavior is meaningful and non-obvious.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the important special case for endFrame:null is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate for a lot. It covers the core patch behavior well, but an agent still lacks guidance on return values, error behavior, and the meaning of several undocumented parameters. This is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description adds the general patch semantics that only passed fields are changed, which helps all parameters. However, it does not clarify several undocumented parameters like filename, startFrame, fadeInFrames, or fadeOutFrames. The endFrame:null note mostly repeats what the schema already describes.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Patch an existing audio overlay.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_audio_overlay and remove_audio_overlay. The partial-update phrasing further defines what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies the tool is for modifying an existing overlay rather than creating or removing one, which gives clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but 'existing audio overlay' and 'patch' make the intended use reasonably unambiguous.

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

All Morpha tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.

Tool Count2/5

95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.

Resources

Need Help?