Search and license 217,000+ authentic vintage 8mm home movie clips (1930s-1980s).
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct action: searching, retrieving details, finding similar clips, checking rights, licensing, and building a rough cut. No two tools overlap in purpose, so an agent can easily select the right one.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores. The verbs clearly describe the action (search, get, find, check, license, build) and are uniformly applied.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a niche vintage footage API. Each tool covers an essential aspect of the search-to-license workflow without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full customer journey: discovering footage, inspecting details, assessing rights, licensing, and even assembling an edit list. No critical operations are missing for the stated purpose.
build_rough_cutAAuto-assemble a timed sequence of vintage clips into a video timeline based on a description. Returns an ordered list of clips with durations. Great for creating edit lists or storyboards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pace | No | Editing pace: slow (4-8s/clip), balanced (3-6s/clip), fast (2-4s/clip) | |
| query | Yes | Natural language description of the video sequence (e.g. 'american road trip summer vacation 1960s') | |
| year_to | No | Latest year filter | |
| year_from | No | Earliest year filter | |
| target_seconds | No | Target timeline length in seconds (20-600, default 60) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false in annotations, the safety profile is clear. The description adds return details ('Returns an ordered list of clips with durations'), but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like permissions or how the description is processed.
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 only two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core function and the second adding the use case. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.
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?
The description explains the tool's output (ordered list with durations) and use cases, but does not mention the filtering parameters (pace, year range, target_seconds) which the schema covers. Given the moderate complexity and comprehensive schema, this is adequately complete.
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 describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema carries the burden.
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 clearly states the tool auto-assembles a timed sequence of vintage clips into a video timeline based on a description, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_vintage_footage or license_clip by focusing on timeline building.
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 description gives a clear use case ('Great for creating edit lists or storyboards') and implies it is for assembling timelines rather than searching or licensing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_clip_rightsAVerify a clip is eligible for a given intended use (commercial, editorial, broadcast, etc.) before licensing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clip_id | Yes | The clip ID to check | |
| intended_use | No | Intended use: commercial, editorial, broadcast, digital, or ai_training |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'before licensing' sequencing but no additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or return format. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning, with no filler or repetition.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose and key context (before licensing). However, there is no output schema, and the description does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., boolean or rights details), leaving a slight gap for an agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions. The description lists some intended_use values but also says 'etc.', which is redundant with the schema's exhaustive list. It adds marginal meaning by framing the purpose as eligibility verification, but the schema already carries the parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb 'Verify' and clearly identifies the resource: clip eligibility for a given intended use. It distinguishes from siblings like license_clip, which performs the actual licensing, and get_clip_details, which likely provides general details.
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 phrase 'before licensing' provides clear context that this tool should be used as a pre-licensing check. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but it implies a workflow step, which is sufficient for clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_similar_footageAFind visually similar vintage clips by providing a clip ID. Returns clips with similar visual content from the Stockfilm archive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (1-25, default 10) | |
| clip_id | Yes | Clip ID to find similar footage for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns clips from the Stockfilm archive, but does not detail edge cases, pagination, or failure modes. With strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate for the supplementary value.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Find visually similar vintage clips'. Every word adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the simple tool, complete schema, and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could benefit from explicit mention of the limit parameter's behavior or differentiation from sibling search tools, but the core functionality is fully conveyed.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both clip_id and limit. The description confirms the key parameter (clip ID) but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's function: finding visually similar vintage clips given a clip ID. It specifies the action (find), the resource (visually similar vintage clips), and the input (clip ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vintage_footage, which likely performs a broader search.
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 description implies usage by stating the prerequisite of providing a clip ID, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like search_vintage_footage or get_clip_details. While the context is clear, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_clip_detailsAGet full details for a specific Stockfilm clip including description, year shot, location, price, resolution, thumbnail URL, and preview URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clip_id | Yes | The clip ID from search results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the list of returned fields but no additional behavioral traits like error handling or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key details. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.
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 simple single-parameter getter with strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly lists the return fields, making expectations clear.
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 schema coverage is 100% with clip_id already described as 'The clip ID from search results'. The description does not add new parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full details for a specific Stockfilm clip' and enumerates the specific details (description, year shot, location, price, resolution, thumbnail URL, preview URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_vintage_footage' (search) and 'license_clip' (licensing).
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 phrase 'for a specific Stockfilm clip' and 'clip ID from search results' imply the tool is used after a search to retrieve details for a known clip. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives, though sibling names provide that context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
license_clipALicense a vintage clip from Stockfilm. Costs $10 USD in USDC (Solana or Base). Returns the x402 endpoint URL for payment. License is royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual. To complete payment, use an x402-compatible agent framework or wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clip_id | Yes | The clip ID to license |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly=false and idempotent=true; the description adds concrete behavioral context: flat $10 USDC fee, payment networks, perpetual royalty-free terms, and the return of an x402 payment endpoint. This goes well beyond the annotation signals and does not contradict them.
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?
Four sentences, each conveying distinct information: action and source, cost, return value, license terms, and payment completion step. No redundancy or filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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?
With only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, cost, return value, license scope, and how to complete payment. It is complete for a simple tool of this complexity.
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 schema already fully describes clip_id with 100% coverage, and the description doesn't add additional parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.
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 clearly states the action ('License') and resource ('vintage clip from Stockfilm'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search, build, or check. It also specifies cost and return value, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 description implies usage for acquiring a license and gives next-step guidance (use an x402-compatible framework), but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like check_clip_rights or state when not to use it. Clear context, but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_vintage_footageASearch Stockfilm's archive of 217,000+ authentic vintage home movie clips from the 1930s-1980s. Returns clips with metadata, pricing, thumbnails, and licensing info. All footage is real 8mm/Super 8 film — no AI-generated content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (1-50, default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Natural language search query. Be descriptive: '1960s california family barbecue' works better than just 'family'. | |
| year_to | No | Latest year filter (e.g. 1969) | |
| location | No | Location filter (city, state, or country) | |
| year_from | No | Earliest year filter (e.g. 1950) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond these by stating that returns include metadata, pricing, thumbnails, and licensing info, and it assures content authenticity ('no AI-generated content'), which is useful for trust and expected output.
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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main verb and resource in the first sentence, then provides key return-value information and an authenticity guarantee. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized.
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?
Given the rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool searches, what it returns (metadata, pricing, thumbnails, licensing info), and notes the content provenance (1930s-1980s, real 8mm/Super 8). No output schema exists, so the description's mention of return contents satisfies the need.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including query, limit, year_from, year_to, and location. The description does not add any extra parameter-level guidance, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Stockfilm's archive of 217,000+ authentic vintage home movie clips.' It distinguishes from siblings like find_similar_footage by emphasizing descriptive query search over the vintage archive, making the scope unambiguous.
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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: searching for vintage home movie clips in a specific archive. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, such as 'use find_similar_footage for similarity-based search,' so it stops short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!