Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

effect_noise

Apply film grain or digital noise to video for vintage or lo-fi aesthetics. Adjust intensity, noise type, and per-frame animation.

Instructions

Apply film grain or digital noise.

Adds texture noise to video for vintage or lo-fi aesthetics.

Args: input_path: Absolute path to input video. output_path: Absolute path for output video. intensity: Noise amount 0-1. Default 0.05. mode: Noise type (film, digital, color). Default film. animated: Whether noise changes per frame. Default true.

Returns: Dict with success status and output_path.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNofilm
animatedNo
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses defaults (intensity 0.05, mode film, animated true) and the per-frame behavior implied by 'animated', but says nothing about overwrite semantics, cost/performance, or whether the output codec/resolution is preserved. The mutation and overwrite risk is only covered incidentally by the schema.

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 structured Args list that is easy to scan. The second sentence slightly restates the first ('adds texture noise' vs 'apply film grain or digital noise') but earns its place by naming the aesthetic use case.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief Returns note is optional garnish. With all meaningful parameters except overwrite explained and output shape known, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the overwrite/mutation risk and sibling disambiguation are thin.

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 17% (just the overwrite field), so the description does real work: it documents intensity as a 0-1 range with default 0.05, supplies the otherwise-missing mode values (film, digital, color), and explains animated as per-frame variation. Only overwrite is left unaddressed in prose, and that one is documented in the schema itself.

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 film grain or digital noise' to video, with the aesthetic intent (vintage/lo-fi) spelled out. It never names or distinguishes itself from the many sibling effect_* / glitch_* tools, so an agent must infer that this is the texture-noise one.

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 phrase 'for vintage or lo-fi aesthetics' implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., when to combine with effect_scanlines or effect_vignette), and no alternatives named.

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