Skip to main content
Glama

Blur region

blur_region

PROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Put a VISIBLE censor over a fixed RECTANGLE of the original footage — blur, mosaic or a black bar. Use it when the user WANTS the covering to show: a face, a document, a phone number, a plate. To make something GO AWAY instead — burned-in captions, a watermark, a username, an object — use erase_region / erase_burned_text, which repaint the pixels and rebuild the picture behind them; a blur where the user asked for removal reads as a workaround. x,y = TOP-LEFT corner and w,h = size, all as FRACTIONS (0-1) of the SOURCE frame — exactly the frames look_at shows you; a 9:16 or other output reframe moves the censored footage with it automatically, and spliced-in clips/images are never censored. Example — a username in the top-right corner: x=0.6, y=0.02, w=0.38, h=0.1. FIRST look_at the video asking exactly where the text sits (corner? edge? how big?), then blur_region, then render_preview and CHECK the sheet — if text still shows, remove_blur and place a bigger region. start/end (output seconds) optionally limit when it applies; omit both for the whole video. mode: 'blur' (soft, default), 'pixelate' (mosaic), 'black' (solid bar). The rectangle does NOT track motion — text that moves with the camera may leave it; verify and tell the user honestly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hYes
wYes
xYes
yYes
endNo
modeNo
startNo
project_idYesRequired immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provide behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries full burden. It discloses the coordinate system (fractions of source frame), the non-tracking nature, that spliced clips are never censored, optional timing, and the project-scoped behavior. This goes well beyond what annotations offer.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but each sentence adds essential context: scope, purpose, usage alternatives, coordinate system, example, workflow, mode, and limitation. It's front-loaded with the project scope and purpose, and while lengthy, it's structured with bold labels and an example, so it's not wasteful. Slightly over-wordy but justified for the complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation hints, the description covers all necessary details: how to specify the region, coordinate system, modes, timing, verification workflow, and edge cases (motion, spliced clips). It even includes a concrete example. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is only 13% (only project_id described). The description explains x/y/w/h as fractions, start/end as output seconds, mode meanings, and project_id scoping. It adds substantial meaning for every parameter, fully compensating for the sparse schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: placing a visible censor (blur, mosaic, black bar) over a fixed rectangle of the original footage. It distinguishes itself from siblings (erase_region/erase_burned_text) by contrasting visible covering vs removal.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use it (user wants covering to show) and when not (when removal is desired, pointing to erase tools). Provides a step-by-step workflow (look_at, blur_region, render_preview, check, adjust) and notes the limitation about motion tracking.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.