Removes silent sections from video by detecting gaps and trimming them, so you can cut dead air and produce tighter edits.
Remove silent sections from video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected. | |
| input_path | Yes | ||
| keep_margin | No | ||
| output_path | Yes | ||
| silence_threshold | No | ||
| min_silence_duration | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.4Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+ "title": "Overwrite",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.16.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet says nothing about whether it mutates the input file, how aggressively it cuts, whether audio/video sync is preserved, or what the output artifact looks like. Only the verb 'remove' hints at a write operation; everything else about side effects and safety is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but at one clause it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Nothing needs trimming; content needs adding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter mutating media operation with no annotations, the description is far too thin. While an output schema exists and needn't be re-explained, the missing guidance on threshold units, output overwrite behavior, and processing side effects leaves the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17% (only 'overwrite' is documented), and the description adds no meaning for the five undocumented parameters, especially the non-obvious 'silence_threshold' (units? dBFS?), 'min_silence_duration' (seconds?), and 'keep_margin'. This is the exact case where the description must compensate and does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove silent sections from video'), which is distinct from time-based siblings like video_trim or video_speed. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this instead of video_trim, video_edit, or video_ai_transcribe, nor any prerequisite or workflow context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.