Skip to main content
Glama
Galbaz1

video-research-mcp

by Galbaz1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Video Batch Analyze

video_batch_analyze
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze every supported video in a directory concurrently, applying one instruction to each file, with bounded parallelism and resumable batch jobs.

Instructions

Analyze all video files in a directory concurrently.

Scans the directory for supported video files (mp4, webm, mov, avi, mkv, mpeg, wmv, 3gpp), then analyzes each with the given instruction using bounded concurrency (3 parallel Gemini calls). Discovery rejects more than 5,000 entry visits; narrow the directory or pattern to stay within that bound.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idNoResume this exact batch without repeating completed or ambiguous submissions
directoryYesPath to a directory containing video files
max_filesNoMaximum files to process
instructionNoWhat to analyze in each videoProvide a comprehensive analysis of this video.
glob_patternNoGlob pattern to filter files within the directory*
output_schemaNoOptional JSON Schema for each video's response
thinking_levelNoGemini thinking depth.high
max_concurrencyNoMaximum concurrent item submissions

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / job_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Resume this exact batch without repeating completed or ambiguous submissions"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_concurrency
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 3,
+  "description": "Maximum concurrent item submissions",
+  "maximum": 3,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / thinking_level / description
      Added value: +"Gemini thinking depth."
  3. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: 3-way bounded concurrency, the 5,000-entry discovery rejection bound, and the list of supported containers. It does not disclose the long-running/job lifecycle implied by the job_id resume parameter, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then formats, then limits. No filler, though the extension list is slightly verbose.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to supply operational bounds, which it does (formats, concurrency, discovery cap). It omits any mention of the job/resume workflow around job_id and what happens to unsupported or failed files.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% across all 8 params, so the schema already carries the semantics; this is the baseline 3 case. The description adds a little (concurrency of 3 maps to max_concurrency, formats relate to glob_pattern/directory), but says nothing about job_id, instruction, output_schema, or thinking_level.

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 with scope: 'Analyze all video files in a directory concurrently,' plus the accepted file extensions. It implicitly separates itself from the single-file video_analyze sibling via 'all ... in a directory,' but never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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 operational guidance ('narrow the directory or pattern to stay within that bound') and implies the batch-vs-single use case, but never states when to prefer this over video_analyze, content_batch_analyze, or video_analyze_windows, nor any prerequisites.

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