Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Video Export Gif

video_export_gif

Exports a video (or a [start_ms,end_ms] slice of it) to an optimized looping GIF — for README/social. fps (default 12) and width (default 640, height auto) control size. Returns the output path, frame count, and size.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fpsNoFrames per second in the GIF (default 12).
inputYesPath to the source video.
widthNoOutput width in px, height scales to keep aspect (default 640).
end_msNoSlice end (default: end of video).
outputNoOutput path (default: <input>.gif). Missing parent folders are created.
start_msNoSlice start (default 0).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that the output is an optimized looping GIF, that fps and width control size with height scaling automatically, and that the return value includes output path, frame count, and size. It does not mention overwrite behavior, but the annotations do not contradict the description.

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 purpose and slice capability are front-loaded, followed by the most important tuning parameters and return details. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a straightforward file-export tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, slicing, defaults, output behavior, and return values. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description repeats the fps and width defaults and the slice semantics, adding little beyond what the input schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Exports a video (or a [start_ms,end_ms] slice of it) to an optimized looping GIF'. It also names the intended use case (README/social), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly different from siblings like video_trim or video_concat.

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 'for README/social' phrasing gives clear context about when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the GIF-export purpose is distinct enough among the video siblings that an agent can select it confidently.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources