Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
video-brief-mcp

video-brief-mcp

by Artem-Pavlenko
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Frames as images

brief_frames
Read-only

Extract labeled video frames at exact timestamps or at fixed intervals, up to 16 per call, so a coding assistant can review visual feedback from a screen recording.

Instructions

Frames at explicit times (at), or one every N seconds between from and to. At most 16 per call; page with from/to for more.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "brief_frames"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atNoExact times to grab
toNoSeconds, "MM:SS" or "HH:MM:SS"
fromNoSeconds, "MM:SS" or "HH:MM:SS"
pathYesAbsolute path to the video (or audio) file
everyNoSeconds between frames when 'at' is not given (default 30)
widthNoFrame width in px (default 1000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two pieces of behavior the schema cannot express: a hard cap of 16 frames per call and the recommended workaround of paging with from/to, which prevents silent truncation. It stops short of saying what is actually returned (image payloads versus file paths on disk), which matters for a frame-extraction 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability stated first and the operational limit plus workaround second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the input side is well covered. The gap is the output side: there is no output schema, and the description does not say whether frames come back as inline images, file paths, or a count, nor where (if anywhere) they are written. For an image-producing tool that is a meaningful omission an agent would want resolved.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters including formats ('MM:SS'), the default of 30 seconds for 'every', and the width range are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the at-versus-every relationship but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource (frames) and both operating modes: explicit times via 'at', or a periodic sample between 'from' and 'to'. Combined with the title 'Frames as images', an agent can tell this extracts stills from a media file, but the verb is implicit (the description never says 'extract' or 'return') and no sibling such as brief_slice or brief_probe is named for contrast.

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?

It clearly distinguishes the two selection modes ('at' versus periodic 'every' between 'from' and 'to'), which implies when each is appropriate. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer a sibling like brief_probe or brief_slice instead, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools