Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Montik

by app.montik
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Text behind subject

text_behind_subject

Put a text clip (a title, a word, a caption) behind the person in the shot: the footage under it is repeated on a Subject track above the text with its background removed, so the words sit between the subject and the background. Big type that the person overlaps reads best. Graphics can't: they're drawn above the picture.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "clipId": "<clipId>"
    },
    "name": "text_behind_subject"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clipIdYes
projectIdNoProject to act on (default: the open one)
approvalIdNoOnly after needs_approval: the id it gave, once the user said yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-destructive, closed-world write; the description adds real behavior beyond them by disclosing the side effects: a duplicate of the footage is placed on a new Subject track and its background is removed. It does not mention the approval flow or what state the timeline ends in, but the core mechanism is unusually well disclosed.

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, both earning their place, with the action and its mechanism front-loaded and the usage caveat last. There is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

This is a compound edit (new track, background removal, restacking) with no output schema, so the description should ideally say what the agent gets back or whether the result is undoable. The mechanism is explained well, but the approval prerequisite visible in the schema and the resulting timeline state are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 67%, with projectId and approvalId documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and notably leaves the required clipId ambiguous between the text clip being placed and the subject clip being keyed, which an agent must guess.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Put a text clip ... behind the person in the shot') and explains the mechanism that makes it distinct: footage is repeated on a Subject track above the text with its background removed. It also distinguishes itself from overlay-style tools ('Graphics can't: they're drawn above the picture'), so an agent can separate it from add_text, add_html_overlay, or remove_background without opening a schema.

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?

It gives a clear condition for good results ('Big type that the person overlaps reads best') and an explicit exclusion ('Graphics can't'), which tells the agent when not to use it. It does not name the fallback tool for plain text or for graphics, so routing in those cases is left to inference.

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

All Montik toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources