Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

video_layout_grid

Arrange multiple video clips into grid layouts such as 2x2 or 3x1 and export a single video with configurable gap, padding, and background color.

Instructions

Create grid-based multi-video layout.

Arranges multiple videos in a grid pattern (2x2, 3x1, etc.).

Args: clips: List of absolute paths to video files. layout: Grid layout (2x2, 3x1, 1x3, 2x3). output_path: Absolute path for output video. gap: Pixels between clips. Default 10. padding: Padding around grid. Default 20. background: Background color hex. Default #141414.

Returns: Dict with success status and output_path.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gapNo
clipsYes
layoutYes
paddingNo
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
backgroundNo#141414
output_pathYes

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses a dict return shape. It says nothing about write semantics — notably it omits the overwrite behavior documented in the schema, and gives no failure conditions (e.g., what happens if clip count doesn't match the grid, or if source resolutions differ).

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 a one-line purpose followed by a clarifying sentence, then structured Args/Returns blocks. No filler, though the Args section largely mirrors schema field names rather than adding much beyond units and defaults.

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 re-stating the return dict is redundant rather than helpful. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should cover overwrite/protection semantics and validation rules on clips-vs-layout; both are missing, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Coverage is only 14%, and the description partially compensates by documenting six of seven parameters with units and formats ('Pixels between clips', 'Background color hex', defaults), which the schema titles alone don't convey. However it adds no constraints on `layout` values beyond parenthetical examples, and it entirely omits `overwrite`, the one parameter with safety implications.

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 grid-based multi-video layout') and immediately clarifies the shape of the output ('Arranges multiple videos in a grid pattern (2x2, 3x1, etc.)'). That distinguishes it in spirit from pip/split-screen siblings, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's nature — multiple clips arranged in a grid — but with siblings like video_layout_pip, video_split_screen, and video_merge in the list, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative is offered. The agent must infer the distinction from the word 'grid' alone.

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