Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

glitch_slit_scan

Creates a slit-scan temporal displacement effect by sampling each video row or column from a different past frame, producing a time-smeared glitch look.

Instructions

Apply slit-scan temporal displacement effect (requires Node.js + GPU).

Each row/column of the output is sampled from a different past frame, creating a time-smeared effect reminiscent of slit-scan photography.

Args: input_path: Absolute path to input video. output_path: Absolute path for output video. depth: Number of past frames to use (1-120). Default 30. direction: 0=top-bottom, 1=bottom-top, 2=left-right, 3=right-left. Default 0.

Returns: Dict with success status and output_path.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNo
directionNo
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
input_pathYes
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

A3.8/5.0
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 does disclose the runtime requirement (Node.js + GPU), the visual effect semantics, and the shape of the return value. It leaves out failure behavior, cost/performance implications of the 120-frame depth, and overwrite semantics (left to the schema). Adequate but not rich.

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 with the effect and its visual rationale, then clean Args/Returns blocks. Efficient overall, though the slit-scan photography simile sentence is slightly decorative rather than operational.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the Returns line is a harmless restatement. The description supplies the prerequisite, the parameter value maps, and the effect intent — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; only edge-case behavior (overwrite conflicts, GPU-absence failure) is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 20%, but the description compensates strongly: it documents input_path/output_path as absolute paths, gives depth's range (1-120) and default (30), and crucially decodes direction's four numeric values (0=top-bottom … 3=right-left) that the schema exposes with no enums. Only overwrite is left to the schema, where it is already documented.

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 effect ('Apply slit-scan temporal displacement effect') and explains the mechanism (each row/column sampled from a different past frame), which is enough to distinguish it from neighbouring glitch siblings like glitch_scanline_jitter or glitch_screen_tearing. It doesn't explicitly compare itself to those siblings, but the effect description is distinctive.

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 prerequisite 'requires Node.js + GPU' is a useful gating constraint for choosing this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of the alternative glitch tools an agent could pick instead. Usage context is implied rather than 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