Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

video_mograph_progress

Generates a standalone progress bar or loading animation video with configurable duration, style, and colors for use in edits or UI mockups.

Instructions

Generate progress bar / loading animation.

Creates a standalone progress animation video.

Args: duration: Animation duration in seconds. output_path: Absolute path for output video. style: Progress style (bar, circle, dots). Default bar. color: Progress color hex. Default #CCFF00. track_color: Background track color hex. Default #333333. fps: Frame rate. Default 30.

Returns: Dict with success status and output_path.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fpsNo
colorNo#CCFF00
styleNobar
durationYes
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
output_pathYes
track_colorNo#333333

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that output is a standalone video written to an absolute path and that the return is a dict with success status and output_path. It is silent on the important overwrite/clobber behavior (only surfaced by the schema) and on any dependency or failure modes for a file-writing render 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first two lines, then a compact Args block. The default values restated in Args are already in the schema, which is mild redundancy, but each line is short and scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the brief Returns line is sufficient. With 7 parameters the description covers the two required ones well and lists style values, leaving only overwrite unaddressed in prose. That single omission is the only substantive completeness gap for a render-and-write tool.

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 14%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains duration units (seconds), the absolute-path requirement for output_path, and crucially enumerates the valid style values (bar, circle, dots) that the schema does not restrict via enum. It omits the seventh parameter, overwrite, entirely — a meaningful gap given the tool writes files.

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: 'Generate progress bar / loading animation' and 'Creates a standalone progress animation video.' An agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling video_mograph_count, which is the only plausible confusion point.

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?

The mention of 'loading animation' implies the intended scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as video_mograph_count or the hyperframes tools. The agent must infer placement from the name 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