Extract Frames — Extract frames from a video at a specified frame rate as JPEG images (returned as a ZIP). [category: media]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | Frames per second to extract | |
| max | No | Maximum number of frames to extract. | |
| file | Yes | Video to sample. Frames are always JPEGs (frame_0001.jpg…) in a ZIP — no PNG option despite the tool blurb. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide generic flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that output is a ZIP of JPEG images and that extraction happens at a specified frame rate, giving the agent concrete expectations beyond the annotations.
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 compact sentence with no unnecessary elaboration and front-loads the action and output format. The 'Extract Frames —' prefix is redundant with the tool name, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential call details: input video, frame rate, and ZIP/JPEG output format. The schema fills in the remaining parameter defaults and constraints, so nothing critical is missing for a correct invocation.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults, bounds, and descriptions. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'specified frame rate' and 'returned as a ZIP,' so it stays at the schema-driven baseline.
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 states a specific action and resource: extract frames from a video at a given frame rate, output as JPEGs in a ZIP. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like media_extract_audio and media_trim_video.
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 intended usage is implied by the operation 'extract frames from a video,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives. An agent can infer when to use it, but the description does not state this directly.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
