flayr

Lint an ad cut (joins, captions, audio, ending, length)

ad_cut_lint

[writes flayr data · write scope] Checks an ad's cut against the ad-cut rules: too many joins (warning), joins only at a rest point, no cut inside a caption or its fade, one caption layer, no audio dip at a join, exactly one ending, and the network's length / aspect / ad-text window (TikTok 9:16, 12-25 s, ad text up to 100 by default). Each finding names its fix. It reads the cut you describe (segments, captions, signals), not a rendered file; a rule with nothing to check is reported unchecked. With contentId the result is kept for that draft: a format:ad video draft is booked or filed as an ad only once its latest lint for the network passes. (Wraps POST /api/v2/video-studio/ad-cut/lint.)

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": {
      "network": "<network>",
      "segments": "<segments>"
    },
    "name": "ad_cut_lint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`joins`	No	Extra cut points inside segments, output ms.
`adText`	No	Ignored with contentId (the draft text is used).
`aspect`	No	For example "9:16", or `{ width, height }`.
`network`	Yes	tiktok, x, pinterest, reddit, or a configured network.
`signals`	No	Per source: `{ motion?: [{ atMs, energy }], envelope?: [{ atMs, db }] }`, in source ms.
`captions`	No	`{ startMs, endMs, text?, layer?, fadeInMs?, fadeOutMs? }` in output ms. Omit when unknown; [] for none.
`segments`	Yes	In order: takes `{ sourceId, inMs, outMs, includesEnding? }` or `{ kind: "end_card", durationMs }`.
`contentId`	No	Keep the result for this draft (write scope).
`audioEnvelope`	No	Output-time `[{ atMs, db }]`, per-source `{ sourceId: [{ atMs, db }] }`, or null for no audio.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the write scope, that contentId persists the result for a draft, that booking/filing is gated on the latest passing lint, that it reads described cut data rather than a rendered file, and that rules with nothing to check are reported unchecked. This is rich behavioral context for a non-read-only operation.

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 dense but front-loaded, starting with write scope and the core linting action before listing rules and contentId behavior. It could be easier to scan with structured rule bullets, but no sentence is mere filler.

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?

For a complex 9-parameter tool with nested inputs and no output schema, the description covers the input model, rule behavior, unchecked cases, and write/booking side effects well. It stops short of describing the exact finding output shape or error conditions, which leaves a modest gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is already 100%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds useful semantics: contentId keeps the result for a draft, adText is ignored with contentId, and network imposes specific length, aspect, and ad-text windows.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it checks an ad's cut against ad-cut rules, then enumerates the rules (joins, captions, audio, ending, length/aspect/ad-text). It also distinguishes itself from rendering tools by saying it reads the cut you describe, not a rendered file.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: with contentId the result is kept for a draft, and a format:ad video draft is booked or filed as an ad only once its latest lint for the network passes. It does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or compare it to a specific alternative, but the gating context is strong.

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

All flayr 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.

Resources

Need Help?