Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

glitch_digital_feedback

Apply a digital feedback glitch effect to create ghostly trails and recursive patterns by blending each video frame with a scaled and rotated previous output.

Instructions

Apply digital feedback glitch effect (requires Node.js + GPU).

Iterative frame feedback with scale/rotation transform. Each frame blends with a scaled+rotated version of the previous output, creating ghostly trails and recursive visual patterns.

Args: input_path: Absolute path to input video. output_path: Absolute path for output video. feedback_mix: Blend between current and feedback (0-1). Default 0.5. scale: UV scale for previous frame. Default 1.0. rotation: Rotation in degrees. Default 0.0. decay: Ghost trail opacity (0-1). Default 0.9.

Returns: Dict with success status and output_path.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decayNo
scaleNo
rotationNo
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
input_pathYes
output_pathNo
feedback_mixNo

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the Node.js/GPU dependency and the return shape, which adds value. However, it is silent on mutation safety — notably the overwrite/protection policy documented only in the schema — and says nothing about processing cost or failure modes for a GPU-bound operation.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence, then a tight two-line explanation of the effect, then structured Args/Returns. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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?

Arguments and return behavior are largely covered, and an output schema exists so the Returns section is a nice redundancy rather than a necessity. Only the overwrite semantics and GPU failure handling are absent, which are minor gaps for a well-documented render tool.

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 low (14%), so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents six parameters with meaning and defaults (feedback_mix, scale, rotation, decay, input_path, output_path). Only 'overwrite' is left unaddressed, and the schema already describes that one.

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 digital feedback glitch effect') and explains the mechanism (iterative frame feedback with scale/rotation, ghostly trails). This is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic glitch siblings, though it never names an alternative 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?

The 'requires Node.js + GPU' line is a real prerequisite that helps an agent decide whether it can run at all. But there is no guidance on when to pick this over the many other glitch tools (glitch_rgb_shift, glitch_vhs_tracking, etc.), so usage is only implicitly derivable from the effect description.

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