Ssemble AI Clipping

create_short

Create AI-generated short-form video clips from a YouTube video or uploaded file. Returns a request ID instantly. Processing takes 5-30 minutes. Costs 1 credit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	Yes	End time in seconds (> start, max 1200s window)
`url`	No	YouTube video URL
`music`	No	Add background music
`start`	Yes	Start time in seconds (>= 0)
`layout`	No	Video framing layout	auto
`ctaText`	No	CTA text (max 200 chars, required when ctaEnabled=true)
`fileUrl`	No	Public video file URL (alternative to url)
`language`	No	Spoken language (ISO 639-1)	en
`memeHook`	No	Prepend a meme hook clip (2-5s attention grabber)
`gameVideo`	No	Add split-screen gameplay overlay
`hookTitle`	No	Add animated hook title at start
`musicName`	No	Exact track name from list_music (case-sensitive)
`ctaEnabled`	No	Show call-to-action text overlay
`noClipping`	No	Skip AI clipping, process entire range as one clip
`templateId`	No	Caption template ID from list_templates (24-char hex)
`webhookUrl`	No	Optional webhook URL for completion/failure notifications. Receives a POST with results when processing finishes.
`musicVolume`	No	Music volume 0-100
`memeHookName`	No	Exact meme hook name from list_meme_hooks (case-sensitive)
`gameVideoName`	No	Exact game video name from list_game_videos (case-sensitive)
`captionLanguage`	No	Caption language if different from spoken
`preferredLength`	No	Target clip duration	under60sec

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reveal key behavioral traits: asynchronous processing (immediate request ID, 5-30 min), cost (1 credit), and input sources (YouTube or uploaded file). It does not cover error handling or authentication, but the most critical behaviors are transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by key constraints (instant request ID, processing time, credit cost). Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a complex tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential behavioral info but omits how the source is specified (url vs fileUrl), the full response format, and explicit guidance on combining with sibling tools like get_status. The schema mitigates parameter gaps, but overall completeness is moderate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 21 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only high-level context about source types (YouTube/upload) but does not individually explicate parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's specific action: 'Create AI-generated short-form video clips from a YouTube video or uploaded file.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, delete, or check status.

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 description implies when to use this tool (to create a short) by mentioning it returns a request ID immediately and processing takes 5-30 minutes, hinting that subsequent status checks are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_status or list_* for complementary operations.

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

All Ssemble AI Clipping tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: create, delete, status, shorts retrieval, and separate list tools for each asset type (game videos, meme hooks, music, templates, requests). No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_short, list_music, get_status). The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a clipping service: it covers creation, status, retrieval, deletion, request listing, and asset selection. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of short creation: create, check status, retrieve results, and delete. Additionally, all necessary asset list tools are present to support creation, leaving no obvious gaps.

create_short

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources