Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

video_export_frames

Extract individual frames from a video as JPG or PNG images at a chosen frames-per-second rate, enabling thumbnail generation, visual analysis, or frame-by-frame review.

Instructions

Export frames from a video as individual images.

Args: input_path: Absolute path to the input video. output_dir: Directory for extracted frames. Auto-generated if omitted. fps: Frames per second to extract (1.0 = 1 frame per second, default 1.0). format: Output image format (jpg or png, default jpg).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fpsNo
formatNojpg
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
input_pathYes
output_dirNo

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

B3.3/5.0
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 add one useful behavioral fact: output_dir is auto-generated when omitted. However, it is silent on the safety-relevant overwrite flag that the schema exposes (existing media protected unless explicitly allowed), and says nothing about failure modes for a bad input_path or what a partial/failed extraction leaves behind.

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?

The lead sentence is front-loaded and states purpose and output in one line, followed by a compact Args block. Slight waste in restating defaults already present in the schema (fps default, format default), but nothing is bloated or buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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. What is missing for a 5-param mutation-of-filesystem tool with no annotations is the overwrite/destructive semantics, what happens when output_dir already contains files, and how this differs from sibling frame-extraction tools.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents input_path as an absolute path, output_dir behavior when null, the meaning of fps (1.0 = one frame per second, default 1.0), and constrains format to jpg or png (the schema itself offers no enum). Only the overwrite parameter is left to the schema, which fortunately documents it.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Export frames from a video as individual images') and clarifies the output form (individual image files, not a single contact sheet), which is genuinely informative. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like video_extract_frame, video_thumbnail, or video_storyboard, leaving the agent to guess which frame-extraction tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance at all. With siblings such as video_extract_frame (singular extraction), video_thumbnail, video_preview, and video_storyboard in the namespace, the absence of any routing statement is a real gap — the description only explains mechanics, never selection criteria.

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