Skip to main content
Glama

Clueso

by io.clueso

Update or inspect article media

update_article_media

Update an article image/GIF (screenshot), or inspect its current state.

  • Provide one or more of zoom_factor, crop, shapes to change metadata.

  • Pass render=true (with no other updates) to fetch the current details without mutating.

To DELETE an article image/GIF: call update_article with markdown that omits the <SCREENSHOT id> reference. Unreferenced media is pruned server-side on save. There is no separate delete tool — the markdown IS the source of truth for what's present.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cropNoCrop data: { position: [x,y], size: [w,h] } in fractional coords.
renderNoIf true (and no other updates supplied), returns current details and a PNG preview without mutating.
shapesNoArray of shape objects for annotations.
project_idYesProject ID.
zoom_factorNoZoom magnification (1.0 = no zoom).
screenshot_idYesScreenshot ID (from get_article).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that render=true is read-only, and that deletions are handled by a sibling tool via markdown. It explains the server-side pruning behavior. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as the deletion workflow and the tool's non-destructive update nature.

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 short, well-structured paragraphs. Each sentence serves a purpose: first states purpose, second gives usage bullets, third explains deletion via sibling. No fluff or repetition. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 no output schema and complex parameters (nested objects), the description covers most scenarios: update, inspect, and how to delete (via sibling). It mentions that render=true returns 'current details and a PNG preview', but does not specify what happens upon update (return value). Slightly incomplete for the update path, but overall well-rounded.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Input schema has 100% description coverage, providing baseline of 3. The description adds guidance on how parameters interact: 'Provide one or more of zoom_factor, crop, shapes to change metadata' and 'Pass render=true (with no other updates) to fetch current details.' This clarifies usage patterns beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 'Update an article image/GIF (screenshot), or inspect its current state.' It specifies the resource (article media) and actions (update metadata, inspect state). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_article_media and update_article by explicitly stating the deletion mechanism via update_article.

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 provides explicit guidance: use render=true for inspection without mutation; provide one or more of zoom_factor, crop, shapes for updates. It directly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool (for deletion) and names the alternative (update_article). This is exemplary guidance.

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