Skip to main content
Glama
Capricornus-joe

jianying-local-mcp

by Capricornus-joe
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

process_media

Preprocess media by applying local effects: brightness, contrast, saturation, gamma, reverse, audio extraction, normalization, or denoising. Creates a new file, leaving source untouched.

Instructions

Create NEW media with baked local effects: brightness[-1,1],contrast[0,3], saturation[0,3],gamma[0.1,10],reverse,extract_audio,normalize_audio,denoise_audio. Boolean operations use true/false. Source is untouched; this is preprocessing, not editable native adjustment parameters. Reverse limit 10 minutes. Output has a unique filename and can be reused with create_draft or montage_create.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
dry_runNo
operationsYes
output_dirYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states that the source is untouched, that output is a new file with a unique filename, and that effects are baked in non-editable. This aligns with annotations readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false and adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the main purpose before listing operation details. It is somewhat dense and run-on, but contains no filler.

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?

It covers operations, ranges, booleans, reverse limit, source preservation, and downstream use, but omits behavior for dry_run and output_dir, and lacks return/result detail. Moderate completeness for a moderately complex tool.

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?

The description adds valuable semantics for the operations object (ranges, booleans, reverse limit) but does not explain 'path', 'output_dir', or 'dry_run', which have no schema descriptions either. Coverage is partial, so the baseline remains at 3.

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 clearly states that the tool creates new media with baked local effects上手 and distinguishes it from editable native adjustments. It does not name sibling tools like batch_edit, but it does indicate that output can be reused with create_draft and montage_create, giving useful context.

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?

The description implies usage through phrases like 'preprocessing, not editable native adjustment parameters' and notes output reuse with create_draft/montage_createOF, but it does not explicitly list alternative tools or provide clear decision rules for when to use this tool over others.

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