Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

video_create_from_images

Create a frame-exact video from an ordered sequence of images at a specified frame rate, using direct image paths or a list file and optional output path.

Instructions

Create a frame-exact video from a sequence of images.

Args: images: List of absolute paths to image files (in order), at most 18,000. output_path: Where to save the output video. Auto-generated if omitted. fps: Frames per second (default 30.0), greater than 0 and at most 60. Accepts a positive integer, a decimal, or a rational string such as "30000/1001". list_file: UTF-8 file with one image path per line (absolute paths recommended; relative paths resolve against the server's working directory), at most 18,000 entries and 18,432,000 bytes. Mutually exclusive with images.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fpsNo
imagesNo
list_fileNo
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
output_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv1.16.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / fps / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / fps / type
      Removed value: -"number"
    • addedInput schema / properties / images / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / images / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / images / items
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / images / type
      Removed value: -"array"
    • addedInput schema / properties / list_file
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "List File"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / overwrite
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Explicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.",
+  "title": "Overwrite",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "images"
-]
  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, and it does disclose real constraints (18,000 image cap, fps > 0 and ≤ 60, 18,432,000-byte list file). However it never mentions the 'overwrite' behavior, the container/codec of the produced video, or what happens when output_path collides with an existing file — meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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 one-line purpose, then a scannable arg-by-arg breakdown with no padding. The prose is slightly long-winded per item but every sentence conveys a constraint an agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 5-parameter creation tool with an output schema (so return values need not be described), the definition covers inputs, limits, exclusivity, and path resolution. The only omission is overwrite semantics, which is already documented in the schema and thus not a real completeness gap.

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 only 20%, and the description compensates heavily: rational fps strings like "30000/1001", absolute-path ordering, the images/list_file exclusivity rule, and the relative-path resolution against the server working directory. Only 'overwrite' goes unexplained in the description, but the schema documents it adequately.

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 ('Create a frame-exact video from a sequence of images'), which is instantly distinguishable from all siblings (video_merge merges videos, video_export_frames goes the opposite direction). It never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Use is implied by the Args block, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over video_merge, revideo_render, or image-sequence siblings, nor any stated prerequisites. The images/list_file mutual exclusivity is a parameter-level constraint rather than tool-level selection advice.

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