Skip to main content
Glama
KyaniteLabs

kinocut

by KyaniteLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

video_workflow_validate

Validates an agent workflow JSON job-spec without rendering media, checking allowed operations, @ref resolution, backward references, parameters, and workspace-safe paths before execution.

Instructions

Validate an agent workflow job-spec without rendering any media.

Runs the fail-closed structural validator over the JSON job-spec at spec_path: op allowlist (probe|trim|resize|convert|merge|add_text|composite_layers), symbolic @ref resolution (@sources., @work/, @outputs.), backward-reference-only ordering (a step may reference @work outputs from strictly-earlier steps only), per-op param introspection, and workspace-confined path safety (absolute paths and ../ / symlink escapes fail closed).

Returns a structured verdict ({"valid": true, ...}) on success. On any structural violation it fails closed with a specific error code (invalid_workflow_spec, unknown_workflow_ref, unsupported_workflow_op, unsafe_workflow_source, invalid_workflow_params).

Args: spec_path: Absolute path to the workflow job-spec JSON file.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
overwriteNoExplicitly allow replacing existing media. Existing non-media files are protected.
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the fail-closed behavior, enumerates the specific validation checks (op allowlist, ref resolution, ordering, path safety), and lists the error codes returned on failure. It also notes no media is rendered, implying no side effects.

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?

Well-structured with the purpose front-loaded and a clear 'Args' section. The list of validation checks is detailed but justified for a validator; however, it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, but it still adds error codes, which is helpful. The only gap is the unexplained 'overwrite' parameter, which is not addressed.

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?

The description compensates for the missing schema description of spec_path by explaining it is an absolute path to the workflow job-spec JSON file. However, it completely ignores the optional 'overwrite' parameter, whose schema description ('allow replacing existing media') seems irrelevant to a validate-only tool, leaving the agent to wonder if it matters.

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: 'Validate an agent workflow job-spec', and explicitly distinguishes from rendering ('without rendering any media'). It does not name the sibling tools video_workflow_plan or video_workflow_inspect, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Provides clear context: use this to validate a job-spec without rendering. It implies the use case (checking before rendering) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. video_workflow_render or video_workflow_inspect, nor does it list exclusions.

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