Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Valmera — AI Video Editor

by io.valmera
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Match grade

match_grade

Builds a shot-matching color lookup table for a program window against a specified hero frame. Reports measured color differences before and after matching.

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": {
      "hero_t": "<hero_t>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "match_grade"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoprogram s
startNoprogram s
hero_tYesprogram s
methodNo
strengthNo
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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool reports measured color differences before and after matching. It does not clarify whether the resulting LUT is applied to the project or merely returned, nor whether repeat invocations accumulate state (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and followed by what it reports. No filler, though the second sentence could have been spent on usage routing instead of restating an output detail.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and mutation-implying annotations, the definition is only partially sufficient. Describing the before/after difference report compensates somewhat for the missing output schema, but the undefined method/strength parameters and the unclear apply-vs-return behavior leave meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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 67%, but the schema descriptions are fragmentary ('program s' for hero_t, start, and end), so the description genuinely helps by mapping hero_t to the 'hero frame' and start/end to the 'program window'. It adds nothing about the method enum (mkl vs reinhard) or strength, and gives no units or ranges for the time parameters, leaving half the decision space unexplained.

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?

The description names a specific verb and artifact: it 'builds a shot-matching color lookup table' for a program window against a hero frame, and adds that it reports before/after color differences. That is concrete and distinguishable from generic graders. It does not, however, position itself against close siblings such as apply_look, set_grade_window, set_color_grade, or import_lut, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which to choose.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of a 'program window' and a 'hero frame' hints at a reference-matching workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With many color-related siblings available, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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