Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

effect_chromatic_aberration

Apply an RGB channel split to video for glitch or tech aesthetics; set pixel offset and separation angle to control the effect.

Instructions

Apply chromatic aberration - RGB channel separation.

Creates a trendy RGB split effect popular in tech/glitch aesthetics.

Args: input_path: Absolute path to input video. output_path: Absolute path for output video. intensity: Pixel offset amount. Default 2.0. angle: Separation direction in degrees. Default 0 (horizontal).

Returns: Dict with success status and output_path.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
angleNo
intensityNo
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
input_pathYes
output_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / overwrite
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+  "title": "Overwrite",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it does disclose the return shape ('Dict with success status and output_path') and the effect's definition. But it never mentions the destructive-adjacent 'overwrite' behavior, whether the operation re-encodes/reduces quality, or processing cost — gaps for a video-mutating tool.

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?

Front-loaded one-liner followed by a short effect description and conventional Args/Returns blocks. Slight waste in restating param types already visible in the schema, but overall tight and scannable.

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?

For a 5-param media-mutation tool with no annotations, the description supplies purpose, the four creative parameters, and the return contract; an output schema exists so the Returns section is a minor redundancy. The one meaningful hole is the unmentioned 'overwrite' flag and any note on quality loss or file handling.

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 only 20%, and the description compensates well for input_path, output_path, intensity (pixel offset, default 2.0) and angle (degrees, default 0 = horizontal) — semantics the schema does not supply. It omits 'overwrite' entirely, which is the one parameter the schema does document, so nothing is double-counted and the coverage gap is largely closed.

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: 'Apply chromatic aberration - RGB channel separation,' plus a one-line characterization of the visual result. It's clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like glitch_rgb_shift or glitch_cmyk_split, which sound superficially similar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The aesthetic phrasing ('trendy... popular in tech/glitch aesthetics') is descriptive flavor, not routing guidance an agent can act on.

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