Inspect audio and video files with ffprobe to retrieve container metadata, stream details, codecs, resolution, bitrate, and duration as structured JSON.
Inspect audio and video files with ffprobe. Returns container metadata, stream details, codecs, resolution, bitrate, and duration as JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputPath | Yes | Path to the media file to inspect (e.g. './video.mp4') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Input schema / properties / inputPath / descriptionPrevious value: -"Absolute or relative path to the media file to inspect"New value: +"Path to the media file to inspect (e.g. './video.mp4')"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it clearly frames the operation as inspection and states that results are returned as JSON with metadata, stream details, codecs, resolution, bitrate, and duration. It does not explicitly state that files are never modified or describe failure behavior, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by "Inspect" and by the return-value summary.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and then summarizes the return content. Every phrase contributes useful information without redundancy.
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 simple one-parameter inspection tool, the definition is complete: the schema covers the input path, and the description compensates for the absence of an output schema by listing the key returned fields. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool appears to be missing.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single required parameter, including a description and example path. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ("Inspect") and resource ("audio and video files"), and it names ffprobe as the underlying inspection mechanism. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which generate, convert, trim, extract, compress, or otherwise transform media rather than probe metadata.
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?
Usage is implied by the word "Inspect" and by the listed metadata outputs, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as extract_audio or generate_waveform. There are also no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.