Rengi Forge

vfx_review

Review one VFX clip (video or GIF) like a lead artist: frame strip, greyscale strip, energy curve, timing, white burn-out, contrast, flicker, loop seam, and scores with frame-tied fixes on rng-vfx's six qualities; optional reference to compare. Price: $0.20 USDC via x402, charged only on success. Part of VFX review: Reviews a game effect the way a lead VFX artist would: a numbered frame strip and a greyscale strip, the energy curve, measured timing (arrival, hold, dissipation), white burn-out, value contrast and flicker, and scores with frame-tied notes on the six qualities of rng-vfx.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "vfx_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`clip`	No	One effect as a video or GIF, base64 (mp4, webm, mov, gif), up to 20 s.
`loop`	No	true for looping effects (auras, fire, idle glow): checks the seam instead of the dissipation.
`brief`	No	What the effect is meant to be, e.g. "heavy sword hit on an armoured enemy".
`style`	No	The rng-vfx style it should match: realism, stylized (MOBA), anime, toon, dark-fantasy, pixel.	auto
`clipUrl`	No
`reference`	No	Optional reference clip (base64) to compare against side by side.
`referenceUrl`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.20 USDC x402 price, that the charge occurs only on success, and enumerates the measured review artifacts including timing, burn-out, contrast, flicker, and loop seam. It does not address auth prerequisites, rate limits, or payment failure behavior, but the cost and outcome model are unusually well disclosed for a paid tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and comprehensive. However, the second sentence repeats the same artifact list almost verbatim ('frame strip, greyscale strip, energy curve... scores with frame-tied notes') after already saying 'frame strip, greyscale strip, energy curve... scores with frame-tied fixes,' so a meaningful portion of the description is redundant rather than additive.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does a good job enumerating the return artifacts and pricing model. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 0 required parameters, it fails to resolve the critical input ambiguity: whether the caller must provide clip or clipUrl, and how referenceUrl relates to reference. That gap matters for correct invocation despite the otherwise rich behavioral detail.

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?

Schema description coverage is 71%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds some context by mentioning an optional reference clip to compare against, but it does not clarify the relationship between clip and clipUrl or reference and referenceUrl, nor which input is expected when the schema marks zero parameters required.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Review one VFX clip (video or GIF) like a lead artist.' It then enumerates the exact outputs (frame strip, greyscale strip, energy curve, timing, white burn-out, contrast, flicker, loop seam, scores), making the tool's scope unmistakable. No sibling tool performs VFX review, and the name plus description are clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with the rendering or asset-generation siblings.

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 gives clear context for use: reviewing a game effect against rng-vfx's six qualities, with an optional reference for side-by-side comparison. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool does the same job, so there is little ambiguity about when to choose this tool. The main missing guidance is how to supply the clip when neither clip nor clipUrl is required.

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

All Rengi Forge tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?