Montik

View media frames

view_media_frames

Read-only

Look at a source media file. Without times: one image of frames across the clip, in a grid with their times, made at upload, so it is instant and free; start here to pick B-roll or find the good take. With times, a larger count than the grid has, or a width: JPEG frames rendered at those source times (or count evenly spaced), which count towards the workspace's monthly frames.

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": {
      "mediaId": "<mediaId>"
    },
    "name": "view_media_frames"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No
`times`	No
`width`	No
`mediaId`	Yes
`projectId`	No	Project to act on (default: the open one)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read, and the description adds substantial context they cannot convey: the grid is 'made at upload, so it is instant and free', while rendered frames 'count towards the workspace's monthly frames'. Disclosing the billing/quota consequence is exactly the kind of behavioral fact an agent needs before choosing a mode.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then split cleanly by mode; almost no wasted words. The alternative-condition sentence ('With times, a larger count than the grid has, or a width:') is grammatically compressed and takes a second read to parse.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition covers the mode split, the response type (grid image vs. JPEG frames), and the cost model. It omits the exact return shape (e.g., frame timestamps list, URL vs. inline image) and any quantity limits.

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?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only projectId is documented), so the description carries most of the burden and does so: it explains that `times` selects source timestamps, `count` produces evenly spaced frames, and `width` forces rendering. It leaves the grid's maximum frame count and any bounds on `count`/`times` unstated.

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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource ('Look at a source media file') and then splits into two very distinct behaviors: a cached grid image vs. rendered JPEG frames at requested times. It's clear what comes back in each mode, though it never names a sibling tool (e.g., render_frame) that an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Strong guidance for the grid mode: 'start here to pick B-roll or find the good take', plus an explicit condition for switching to rendering ('with times, a larger count than the grid has, or a width'). It lacks an explicit exclusion or named alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Montik tools Inspect

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

Need Help?