Skip to main content
Glama

video_workflow_plan

Validate a video workflow spec and generate a no-render dry-run plan with operation graph, source info, output intents, and warnings.

Instructions

Produce a no-render plan for an agent workflow job-spec.

Validates the spec first (fail-closed) and then builds a dry-run plan artifact WITHOUT rendering any media: the ordered operation graph, per-source ffprobe results (duration/resolution/codec) and sha256 content hashes where the source file exists, declared output intents, a variant-expansion summary, tool + FFmpeg versions, and warnings for runtime concerns that are not structural errors (e.g. a source file that does not exist yet). The only file written is the optional plan JSON at save_plan; paths inside the artifact are workspace-relative.

Pass variant to plan a single named batch variant: the plan reflects that variant's EFFECTIVE (post-override) steps and auto-named output paths and records workflow.variant. An unknown variant or malformed override fails closed (invalid_workflow_variant).

Returns the plan artifact on success. On a structurally invalid spec it fails closed with a specific error code (same codes as video_workflow_validate).

Args: spec_path: Absolute path to the workflow job-spec JSON file. save_plan: Optional path to write the plan artifact as JSON. variant: Optional declared variant id to plan its effective steps.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
variantNo
save_planNo
spec_pathYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it validates first (fail-closed), builds a dry-run plan without rendering, lists included artifact contents (operation graph, ffprobe results, hashes, etc.), mentions file writing only for save_plan, and describes error codes. No contradictions.

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 description is comprehensive and well-structured, starting with a one-line summary, then detailing artifact contents, parameters, and error behavior. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes value, making it efficient for its complexity.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers inputs, behavior, return values (plan artifact on success, error code on failure), and side effects (optional file write). No obvious gaps; it is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: spec_path as absolute path to JSON file, save_plan as optional path for plan JSON, variant for single named variant planning. This adds value beyond the schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool produces a 'no-render plan for an agent workflow job-spec' with specific verb 'produce' and resource 'plan'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like video_workflow_render by emphasizing no rendering, and from video_workflow_validate by building a dry-run plan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (planning a workflow without rendering) and explains the effect of the 'variant' parameter, including error handling for unknown variants. It implies alternative tools like video_workflow_render for actual rendering, though not explicitly naming them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KyaniteLabs/kinocut'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server