Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

effect_glow

Apply a bloom glow effect to bright areas of a video, adding a soft halo around highlights. Set intensity, blur radius, and brightness threshold to control the result.

Instructions

Apply bloom/glow effect for highlights.

Creates a soft glow around bright areas of the video.

Args: input_path: Absolute path to input video. output_path: Absolute path for output video. intensity: Glow strength 0-1. Default 0.5. radius: Blur radius in pixels. Default 10. threshold: Brightness threshold 0-1. Default 0.7.

Returns: Dict with success status and output_path.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
radiusNo
intensityNo
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
thresholdNo
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 full behavioral burden: it does disclose that a new video is produced at output_path and that a success/output_path dict is returned, which is real value. However, it never mentions that output_path may already exist and that overwrite must be set to replace media (the schema's only documented parameter), nor any cost, performance, or failure behavior for a file-writing operation.

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?

Two-sentence summary is front-loaded and the args/returns listing is scannable with no filler. The Returns block partially duplicates the output schema, a minor redundancy.

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 6-parameter video mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, all visual parameters, and the return shape well. It is short only on the file-safety/overwrite semantics and on interaction with audio or existing output files.

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 17%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it gives units and ranges for intensity (0-1), radius (pixels), threshold (brightness 0-1) plus defaults, and clarifies both paths must be absolute. The one gap is overwrite, which the description omits entirely even though the schema documents it, leaving an agent to discover the overwrite-protection behavior only in the schema.

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 names a specific effect ('bloom/glow for highlights') and explains its visual result ('soft glow around bright areas'), which is enough to distinguish it from effect_vignette, effect_noise or glitch_* siblings by effect type. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to choose glow over alternatives such as video_filter, effect_chromatic_aberration, or still_grade, and no stated preconditions (video format, codec, whether audio is preserved). The intended use is only implied by the effect name.

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