Valmera — AI Video Editor

Record website demo

record_website_demo

Captures a supplied website while a visible cursor performs explicitly authored interaction steps, such as clicks, typing and scrolling. The resulting recording includes interaction timing for subsequent editing.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "steps": "<steps>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "record_website_demo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`steps`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes	Explicit project identifier for this request. The connection's navigation pointer does not select the target.
`orientation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026

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."

First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: the cursor is visible, steps are explicitly authored, and the recording preserves interaction timing for later editing. It does not disclose whether this is a long-running/async job, whether it returns a job handle, or what happens to the target project, which matters for a 3-required-param capture tool with no output schema.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the output characteristic. No filler, though the phrasing ('explicitly authored interaction steps') is slightly abstract for what amounts to a step list.

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 no output schema, the description should cover returns and operational behavior; it partially does by noting the recording includes interaction timing. It omits async/queuing behavior, duration expectations, project_id's necessity, and any orientation defaults, so an agent still lacks what it needs to call this correctly on complex inputs.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only project_id is documented), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for steps by saying they are authored interactions like clicks, typing and scrolling, but says nothing about the url parameter or the orientation enum, or the shape of each step object, leaving the most complex parameter structurally undocumented.

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 and resource: it captures a supplied website while a visible cursor performs authored steps. That scope detail distinguishes it from a plain screenshot or a generic 'record_website', though the near-identical sibling record_website is never named or contrasted.

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?

There is implied context (a demo needing authored interactions) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as an existing project, and no mention of how it differs from the sibling record_website. The agent is left to infer selection between two similarly named tools.

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 tools Inspect

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.