Skip to main content
Glama

open_player

Read-onlyIdempotent

Open an inline Qencode video player in the chat for a playback URL.

Renders an interactive player (MCP Apps UI component) so the user can watch
a transcoded result without leaving the conversation. When a job in this
conversation is already Done with a playable URL, call this in the same
reply as `list_jobs` — do not only paste the link. Pass a playback URL from
`list_jobs` / `get_job_status_detailed`: a progressive file (`.mp4` /
`.webm`) or an HLS/DASH manifest (`.m3u8` / `.mpd`). QuickTime / `.mov`
is rejected (Chromium `<video>` cannot decode that container).

A manifest MUST be a PUBLIC URL. A presigned one is rejected, because the
signature covers only the playlist while its segments are relative and
would 403 (the player would spin forever). A public Media Storage object
plays from `cdn_url` on `list_objects`. A private progressive file
(`.mp4` / `.webm`, no `cdn_url`) plays from `get_download_url` — pass that
URL here and do not append anything. A private HLS/DASH manifest cannot;
do not substitute a presign. Job temp-storage output URLs from `list_jobs`
stay valid for playback.

It resolves the per-user Qencode Player license key (a public client-side
site-key) via the portal bridge and hands it to the widget; the actual
playback happens client-side in a sandboxed iframe.

Args:
    source_url: https:// URL to play — mp4, webm, or an HLS/DASH manifest.
        A presigned manifest URL is rejected; pass a public one.
        `.mov` / QuickTime is rejected — submit `output: "mp4"` instead.
    poster_url: optional https:// image shown before playback starts.
    source_type: optional MIME hint, e.g. "video/mp4", "video/webm",
        "application/x-mpegURL" or "application/dash+xml". The player
        infers a sensible default when omitted.
    title: optional display title for the player.

Allowed playback origins depend on the client's sandbox CSP. Videos hosted
in Qencode storage (`*.qencode.com`, Qencode CDN / `*.cloudfront.net`) play
on every client; an external origin plays on some hosts and is blocked on
others. This tool knows which policy applies, so ALWAYS CALL IT for a
playback URL — including an external mp4/webm. Never refuse up front or
guess from the client name: on a permissive host that refusal would be
wrong.
If the tool DOES reject the URL, follow the error text — do not improvise:
- Presigned manifest: re-open the player on the public URL of the same
  playlist (see above). Do not transcode to mp4 to dodge it.
- QuickTime / `.mov`: do NOT retry `open_player`. Tell the user in-chat
  playback needs MP4, then submit `output: "mp4"` (not `repack` +
  `container: "mov"`) and open the resulting `.mp4`.
- External origin on a strict client: do NOT silently transcode. Tell the
  user only Qencode-storage videos can be viewed in this client, and OFFER
  to create a Qencode Media Storage bucket and upload the video into it
  (`create_bucket` then `download_url_to_bucket` — server-side ingest, no
  re-encode); once they agree, open the player on the resulting Qencode URL.

When the result carries a non-null `client_note`, pass its point on to the
user in the same reply. It describes how THIS client presents the player —
e.g. hosts that put the widget in a collapsed tool-call block, where the
user sees no video until they expand it.

Note: only public / temporary-storage outputs are supported for now.
Signed-cookie / DRM playback does not work inside the chat sandbox yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
poster_urlNo
source_urlYes
source_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
poster_urlNo
source_urlYes
client_noteNo
license_keyNo
source_typeNo
prefer_nested_embedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot carry: rejection rules (presigned manifests, .mov), the CSP/origin policy variance across clients, the private-vs-public URL routing, the client_note passthrough, and the DRM/signed-cookie limitation.

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 and organized into scannable blocks, but the presigned-manifest rejection is restated in the Args section after being fully explained above, and the error-remediation bullets are lengthy — dense and useful, yet slightly redundant.

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 tool with rejection paths, client-dependent CSP behavior, and multi-step recovery flows, the description covers invocation, prerequisites, failure handling, and result handling (client_note). Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (bare titles only), so the description must carry the burden — and it does, documenting all four params in an Args block with accepted forms, constraints, and defaults for source_url, poster_url, source_type (with example MIME values), and title.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Open an inline Qencode video player in the chat') and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it renders an MCP Apps UI component rather than pasting a link.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to call it ('when a job is already Done with a playable URL, call this in the same reply as list_jobs — do not only paste the link'), which URLs to pass and from which siblings (list_jobs, get_job_status_detailed, get_download_url, list_objects), and gives per-error remediation paths naming specific alternatives (submit output: mp4, create_bucket + download_url_to_bucket).

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.