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

video-brief-mcp

by Artem-Pavlenko
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Transcribe (background job)

brief_transcribe
Read-only

Starts Whisper transcription for a video or audio file, returning a timestamped transcript or progress while it processes.

Instructions

Starts Whisper on the file, or reports progress if it is already running. Waits up to waitSeconds (default 45) and returns the full timestamped transcript if it finished, otherwise progress — call again to check. Results are cached, so repeat calls are instant.

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_transcribe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the video (or audio) file
modelNoWhisper model: tiny, base, small, medium, large-v3… (default small)
languageNoLanguage code or "auto" (default en)
waitSecondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, and the description adds the traits that actually matter here: the call blocks up to waitSeconds (default 45), it may return progress rather than a result, and repeat calls hit a cache. There is mild tension between 'starts Whisper' (launching background work and caching output) and readOnlyHint, but nothing indicates data damage or irreversibility, so it is not a contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, how long it blocks and what it returns, then the caching behavior. The async/polling contract is front-loaded rather than buried, and no sentence repeats the schema or the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return shapes (full timestamped transcript vs. progress object). Remaining gaps are minor: it does not describe failure/error behavior, nor how long a started job persists after the call returns.

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 75%, and the one undocumented parameter, waitSeconds, is the one the description explains: it sets the blocking window and defaults to 45. Model and language semantics remain with the schema, which handles them adequately with defaults and accepted values.

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: starts Whisper transcription on a file, or reports progress on an already-running job. That is far more informative than the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling brief_transcript, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool given the near-identical names.

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?

Gives concrete usage behavior for the polling loop ('call again to check') and notes that repeat calls are cheap due to caching. It never says when to use this instead of brief_transcript or brief_probe, so the agent must infer sibling routing from names alone.

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