Skip to main content
Glama

qencode

by com.qencode

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. Use this after a job
completes — pass a playback URL from `get_job_status_detailed`: a
progressive file (`.mp4` / `.webm`) or an HLS/DASH manifest (`.m3u8` /
`.mpd`).

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). For a Media Storage object build
`https://<bucket>.media-storage.<region>.qencode.com/<key>` instead of
calling `get_download_url`, which always presigns. Progressive files are
fine either way — one object, one signature.

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.
    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, do NOT try to fix it automatically (no
repack / transcode / upload behind the user's back).
- Presigned manifest: re-open the player on the public URL of the same
  playlist (see above). Do not transcode to mp4 to dodge it.
- External origin on a strict client: 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

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool resolves a license key, renders in a sandboxed iframe, rejects presigned manifests due to segment 403s, applies client-specific CSP origin policies, may return a client_note, and refuses DRM/signed-cookie playback. This is rich, non-contradictory context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is long but tightly organized: a purpose statement, usage context, parameter list, policy explanation, rejection handling, client_note behavior, and limitations. Every sentence adds operational value, and the most important usage guidance appears early. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete: it covers source types, URL requirements, rejection scenarios, client-specific behavior, user communication obligations, and unsupported playback modes. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required from the description, and this description leaves no obvious operational gap.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains source_url with format and presigned-manifest caveat, poster_url as an optional pre-play image, source_type with concrete MIME examples, and title as a display label. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Open an inline Qencode video player in the chat for a playback URL.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the playback/UI action, not a fetch, transcode, or download operation, and explicitly ties it to post-job completion.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this after a job completes'), names the source of the playback URL ('from get_job_status_detailed'), and provides concrete alternatives and exclusions: build a public Media Storage URL instead of calling get_download_url, never refuse up front, and use create_bucket/download_url_to_bucket for external-origin videos on strict clients. It also states unsupported cases (signed-cookie/DRM).

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

All qencode 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct (list_buckets vs list_objects, search vs fetch docs). Minor overlap exists between transcode_video and start_encode2_raw (both submit jobs) and between get_job_status and get_job_status_detailed, but the descriptions explicitly state when to use which, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names overwhelmingly follow verb_noun (create_bucket, list_buckets, get_download_url, transcode_video). A few deviations like start_encode2_raw, wait_for_job, and download_url_to_bucket break the pure pattern, but the convention is still easily predictable.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for a video encoding platform: bucket management, transcoding submission/status/wait, result retrieval, and docs search/read. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main lifecycle: create bucket, ingest via copy, transcode (two entry points), poll status, fetch result, and generate download URLs. Missing cancel/delete operations for jobs and buckets are notable but not critical for core workflows, and the docs tools help fill knowledge gaps.

Resources