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

video-brief-mcp

by Artem-Pavlenko
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

What was said and shown between two times

brief_slice
Read-only

Extracts a timestamped transcript slice for a video range and interleaves frames at set intervals, enabling item-by-item review of feedback to create tasks.

Instructions

The core reading tool: transcript of [from, to] interleaved with frames every frameEvery seconds (default: ~4 frames across the range). Use it item by item when turning a review into tasks.

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>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "brief_slice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesSeconds, "MM:SS" or "HH:MM:SS"
fromYesSeconds, "MM:SS" or "HH:MM:SS"
pathYesAbsolute path to the video (or audio) file
widthNoFrame width in px (default 1000)
frameEveryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 real behavior beyond that by disclosing the composite return shape (text plus frames) and the default frame density of roughly 4 frames across the range. It stops short of saying frames are images or that they carry a token/size cost, which is the main remaining blind spot for a tool that returns visual payloads.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core identity ('the core reading tool') and the output composition front-loaded before the usage hint. The trailing clause about turning a review into tasks is slightly cryptic but occupies little space.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (transcript plus interleaved frames), the time-range scoping, and the frame-density control, which is enough to call it correctly. Gaps are modest: no statement of relative cost versus brief_transcript/brief_frames and no clarification that audio-only paths yield no frames.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by explaining frameEvery's default behavior ('~4 frames across the range'), which the schema leaves entirely undocumented. It adds nothing for path, width, or the accepted time formats, but that is acceptable given the schema already spells those out.

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?

Names a specific resource and output shape: a transcript over [from, to] interleaved with frames at frameEvery spacing. The phrase 'interleaved with frames' implicitly separates it from brief_transcript (transcript only) and brief_frames (frames only), though it never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Use it item by item when turning a review into tasks' gives a usage context but no explicit when-not conditions and never names the sibling tools (brief_transcript, brief_frames, brief_probe) that would be cheaper alternatives for a transcript-only or frames-only need. Usage is implied, not routed.

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