Skip to main content
Glama

ScorpTech x402 Tools

Frames Timecode

frames_timecode
Read-onlyIdempotent

Write a frame count since midnight as SMPTE timecode. Set drop for 30 fps drop-frame. The count has to land inside one day. 30 frames at 30 fps is 00:00:01:00. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: GET https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/frames-timecode

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": {
      "frames": "<frames>"
    },
    "name": "frames_timecode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dropNo
rateNo
framesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: pricing ($0.001 USDC per successful call via x402 on Solana), an HTTPS alternative endpoint, and an example output value.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation and is generally concise. Pricing and endpoint details are appended but remain relevant; no significant wasted text, though the example and pricing could be slightly more tightly organized.

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 simple three-parameter conversion tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly complete. It provides purpose, range constraint, drop-frame behavior, and an example output, though it leaves the rate enum values under-explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'frames' as a frame count since midnight with a one-day range, and explains 'drop' for 30 fps drop-frame; however, it does not fully explain the 'rate' parameter's 24/25/30 enum values or default.

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 specific verb and resource: convert a frame count since midnight into SMPTE timecode. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related timecode siblings such as timecode_frames or timecode_add.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives a constraint ('the count has to land inside one day') and a drop-frame hint, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like timecode_frames, timecode_add, or timecode_diff. Usage is only implied.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources