Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

effect_vignette

Darkens video edges to draw attention to the center frame, with adjustable intensity, radius, and edge softness for focused visual emphasis.

Instructions

Apply vignette effect - darkened edges.

Creates a darkened border effect that draws attention to the center of the frame.

Args: input_path: Absolute path to input video. output_path: Absolute path for output video. intensity: Darkness amount 0-1. Default 0.5. radius: Vignette radius 0-1 (1 = edge of frame). Default 0.8. smoothness: Edge softness 0-1. Default 0.5.

Returns: Dict with success status and output_path.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
radiusNo
intensityNo
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
input_pathYes
smoothnessNo
output_pathNo

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (dict with success status and output_path) and the numeric ranges/defaults of the effect parameters, but it never mentions overwrite behavior, file replacement risk, or the fact that output_path is optional — the 'overwrite' parameter is only explained in the schema, and the destructive-write aspect is unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with a one-line definition before the elaboration, then a compact args/returns block. The only mild waste is restating schema defaults (0.5, 0.8), but that is minor and aids scanning.

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?

The tool is a simple single-purpose video filter and the description covers what it does, how each shaping parameter behaves, and the return contract — more than sufficient despite the presence of an output schema. It falls short only on overwrite/output_path semantics, which matter because this writes a new media file.

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 description coverage is only 17% (just 'overwrite'), so the description must compensate, and it does: intensity, radius, and smoothness all get meaning plus 0-1 ranges, and input_path/output_path are described as absolute paths. The one gap is that 'overwrite' and the optionality of output_path are not covered in the description text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Apply vignette effect") and immediately explains what that means, "creates a darkened border effect that draws attention to the center of the frame." An agent can distinguish this from effect_glow or effect_noise without opening the schema, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is only implied through the aesthetic intent ("draws attention to the center of the frame"), which hints at when the effect is appropriate. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. effect_glow, video_filter) guidance, and no prerequisites are stated.

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