Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

style_pack_read

Reads STYLE_ and NEG_ blocks from a style.md file or project directory to load reusable video editing style and negative-prompt rules for kinocut workflows.

Instructions

Read STYLE_ and NEG_ blocks from a style.md file or project directory.

Args: path: Absolute path to style.md or to a project directory containing style.md.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It implies a pure read ('Read ... blocks'), yet the schema exposes an 'overwrite' parameter described as 'allow replacing existing media' — a mutation-flavored concept the description never acknowledges. Missing: whether reading has side effects, what happens when style.md or the STYLE_/NEG_ blocks are absent, and any auth or path-safety requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the argument detail following. No filler, though the 'Args:' block could have carried the overwrite clarification instead of leaving it undiscussed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations the description should cover read-only status, missing-file behavior, and the meaning of 'overwrite' in a read tool. Those omissions leave an agent materially under-informed before calling.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 50% schema coverage, the description usefully compensates for the undocumented 'path' parameter, explaining it can be a style.md file or a containing directory. However, it says nothing about 'overwrite', which is the semantically confusing parameter here and is only explained 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 (Read) and a specific resource (STYLE_ and NEG_ blocks in style.md), and clarifies that the target may be a file or a project directory. It is clear enough to distinguish from all siblings, none of which touch style.md, but it never says why an agent would want these blocks or what it does with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools (e.g. storyboard_read). The agent must infer entirely from the name and the mention of style.md.

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