Skip to main content
Glama

Clueso

by io.clueso

Add article media (image or GIF)

add_article_media

Add a screenshot or GIF to the article. Returns a screenshot_id to place in the article via update_article using <SCREENSHOT screenshot_id>.

  • kind="image": pass timestamp to capture a frame from the project's base video, OR pass mcp_upload_id (from the upload tool) to attach an uploaded image. One of the two is required.

  • kind="gif": pass timestamp (start) and duration (seconds). Captures a short GIF clip from the base video. Requires the project to have a video clip.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes'image' or 'gif'.
durationNokind='gif' only: GIF duration in seconds.
timestampNokind='image': capture frame at this timestamp (seconds). kind='gif': GIF start time.
project_idYesProject ID.
mcp_upload_idNokind='image' only: attach an uploaded image (mcp_upload_id from the upload tool) instead of capturing from video.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns a screenshot_id and requires a subsequent update_article call to place the media. It also clarifies the conditional parameter requirements, though it could be more explicit about error handling or side effects.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear main statement followed by bullet-point details for each kind. Every sentence adds value, and the total length is appropriate for the complexity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, conditional logic, no output schema), the description covers the essential workflow: adding media, getting an ID, and placing it via update_article. It mentions prerequisites for gif but lacks explicit error scenarios or confirmation that the media is stored. Still, it is largely complete for practical use.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, but the description significantly enhances parameter understanding by explaining the conditional dependencies: for kind='image', one of timestamp or mcp_upload_id is required; for kind='gif', timestamp and duration are used. It also links mcp_upload_id to the upload tool, which the schema does not.

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 adds a screenshot or GIF to an article, specifying the return value (screenshot_id) and how to use it with update_article. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file or generate_media by focusing on article media attachment.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides detailed conditional usage for the two modes (image vs. gif), including prerequisites (e.g., project must have a video clip for gif). However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like upload_file, generate_media, or update_article_media, leaving the agent to infer when to use this vs. other tools.

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

All Clueso 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between remove_elements and remove_from_project(target='element'), which both remove elements from a clip. This duplication could cause an agent to misselect. Otherwise, tools like add_clips, add_elements, add_audio, and analyze_audio are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_clips, create_project, get_clip, update_elements). There are no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even compound names like voiceover_batch and auto_sync fit the pattern. This makes the tool set predictable for an agent.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the set is significantly larger than the 3-15 range that typically earns its place. While the domain of video creation is broad, several tools seem redundant (remove_elements vs remove_from_project) or narrowly scoped (get_design_guide, get_element_schema), inflating the count. The number feels heavy for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: create, read, update, delete for projects, clips, elements, audio, articles, and clueprints. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to delete a voiceover (only mute via update_clips) and no folder management beyond listing. Overall, agents can accomplish full workflows with few workarounds.

Resources