Extract PNG frames from an ingested video using ffmpeg, with frame rate and max frame controls, for processing and packing into sprite sheets.
Extract PNG frames from an ingested video (needs ffmpeg) so they can be processed and packed like other frames.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | ||
| asset | Yes | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| max_frames | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ffmpeg dependency, but says nothing about side effects (does it create a project asset?), how many frames are produced, how fps/max_frames affect output, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action comes first and the prerequisite is parenthetical. Efficient, though the trailing clause about packing is slightly indirect.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the extraction's outputs and limits. It omits frame-count/fps behavior and result handling, leaving an agent guessing about the practical outcome of the call.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters. The description only indirectly ties 'asset' to an ingested video and ignores fps, max_frames, and project entirely, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema, including the non-obvious defaults (fps=8, max_frames=48).
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?
States a specific verb+resource: extract PNG frames from an ingested video. It also hints at the downstream relationship ('packed like other frames'), which helps place it against siblings like build_spritesheet, but it never names an alternative to distinguish from.
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?
The phrase 'from an ingested video' plus '(needs ffmpeg)' implies a prerequisite (ingest first, ffmpeg available), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to siblings like slice_grid or build_spritesheet.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.