Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

video_workflow_plan

Validates a workflow job-spec and builds a no-render dry-run plan with ordered operations, source probe data, hashes, output intents, variants, and runtime warnings before media is rendered.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
variantNo
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
save_planNo
spec_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. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: fail-closed validation, only the optional save_plan JSON is written, workspace-relative paths, ffprobe/hash contents, and specific error codes are all disclosed. It omits any discussion of the overwrite flag's protective behavior, which matters for a tool touching media paths.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the core purpose, then grouped into valid behavior, artifact contents, and variant semantics, followed by an args block. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence adds distinct behavioral detail rather than restating the schema.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description still characterizes the returned artifact (operation graph, ffprobe results, hashes, warnings, versions), which is genuinely helpful. Combined with error-code and variant behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly; only the overwrite flag is left to the schema.

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 25% (only overwrite is described in-schema), so the description must compensate; it documents spec_path, save_plan and the variant override semantics with effective post-override steps and auto-named outputs. The overwrite parameter goes unmentioned in the description, though its meaning is fully captured in the schema.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Produce a no-render plan for an agent workflow job-spec') and makes the dry-run/no-media distinction explicit. It never names the closest siblings (video_workflow_validate, video_workflow_render) directly, only referencing validate's error codes, so differentiation is implied 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?

Usage is implied: it validates fail-closed first and writes nothing but the optional plan, suggesting it is the planning step ahead of render. The 'Pass variant to plan a single named batch variant' sentence gives a concrete conditional, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus video_workflow_validate or video_workflow_render.

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