Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Valmera — AI Video Editor

by io.valmera
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Plan loop

plan_loop

Proposes a loop ending whose picture relates to the opening frame. With write enabled, it changes the program ending before the end card.

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": "plan_loop"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
writeNo
min_simNo
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

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, which leaves the actual effect ambiguous. The description resolves that by stating the default is a proposal and that write=true actually alters the program ending before the end card, which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs. It still omits reversibility and what a proposal returns, but it is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the write-mode caveat. No filler, though the second sentence could be clearer about what 'changes' entails.

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, so the description should say what a 'proposal' looks like, and one of three parameters is undocumented. It covers the most important risk (mutation only when write=true) but leaves an agent guessing about results and the similarity parameter.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, with just project_id documented, so the description is expected to compensate. It explains what 'write' does functionally, but 'min_sim' is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, despite likely being a similarity threshold that controls the match quality.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific action ('proposes a loop ending whose picture relates to the opening frame'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, jargon like 'loop ending' and 'program ending' is never grounded, and nothing distinguishes it from nearby finishing tools such as add_finish or add_picture_card.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is the implied mode split from 'With write enabled', which suggests a propose-only default. There is no statement of when an agent should choose this over add_finish, set_transitions, or other ending-related siblings, and no prerequisites.

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