Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Valmera — AI Video Editor

by io.valmera
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Critique short

critique_short
Read-only

Evaluates the newest render or a specified asset against visual and editorial criteria, including rhythm, typography, framing, flash safety and continuity. Returns a score and ranked findings with suggested edits; it does not write changes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "critique_short"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deepNofaces, late words and flicker passes (default true)
boardNo
formatNoThe format pack followed by the short (A–J), including its rhythm band.
variantNo
asset_keyNo
project_idYesExplicit project identifier for this request. The connection's navigation pointer does not select the target.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"the pack the short follows (A-J, as apply_format_pack): its rhythm band"New value: +"The format pack followed by the short (A–J), including its rhythm band."
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Previous value: -"Required immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess."New value: +"Explicit project identifier for this request. The connection's navigation pointer does not select the target."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower; the description usefully adds the return contract (a score plus ranked findings with suggested edits) and an explicit non-mutation boundary. It also obliquely explains the non-idempotent hint by tying the default target to the 'newest render,' which can change between calls. It does not say whether a render must exist first or what 'deep' costs in time.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: what is evaluated first, what comes back and the mutation boundary second. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends words on the return shape (score and ranked findings with suggested edits) and on the read-only boundary, which is the key fact for an agent choosing between this and an edit tool. Remaining gaps are secondary: prerequisites for a render to exist, and the meaning of the board/variant switches.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the two documented parameters (deep, format) are themselves cryptic, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does map loosely onto two parameters by mentioning 'a specified asset' (asset_key) and by naming flicker/flash safety and typography, which relate to the deep passes and the format pack. The 'board' and 'variant' parameters receive no clarification at all in either place.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (evaluates) plus the resource and scope (the newest render or a specified asset) and enumerates the criteria families: rhythm, typography, framing, flash safety, continuity. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the nearest siblings (audit_motion, audit_captions, analyze_reference, compare_uploaded_media) so an agent still has to infer the boundary from the criteria list.

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?

Implied usage is clear from 'newest render or a specified asset,' and the closing clause 'it does not write changes' tells the agent this is a check step before editing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, so it stays at the minimum-viable level for a tool sitting among many audit_* and add_* siblings.

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

All Valmera — AI Video Editor toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources