Generate a dense timestamped grid of up to 30 frames between two timestamps, enabling detailed moment-by-moment visual inspection of a video interval.
Dense timestamped grid of frames between start and end (mm:ss.s or seconds), up to 30 frames.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| watch_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states a hard limit ('up to 30 frames') and timestamp format, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or what happens with invalid ranges.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single tight sentence with no filler. Information is front-loaded around output shape and scope, and every phrase adds useful meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits the meaning of `watch_id`, the role of `n`, and enough return-value detail to compensate for the missing output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It explains the `start` and `end` time formats and implies a maximum frame count, but never explains `watch_id` or clearly defines `n` as the requested number of frames.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource and scope: a dense timestamped grid of frames between two timestamps, capped at 30 frames. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves', but an agent can still infer the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `frame` tool or other frame-related siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `frame`, `images`, or `look`. The interval and frame cap imply it is for multi-frame sampling, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.