Skip to main content
Glama

cineflow_quick_reel

Assemble a commercial montage reel from a folder of images or clips, using an optional style prompt to guide the edit.

Instructions

Create an assembled commercial montage reel from a folder of source media assets.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "folder_path": "<folder_path>"
    },
    "name": "cineflow_quick_reel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptNoOverall style description in English.
folder_pathYesDirectory path containing input images/clips.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about where the resulting reel is written, how long generation takes, whether it is reversible or overwrites prior output, or whether credentials/credits are required — for a generation tool with side effects this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the artifact, with no filler. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity shades into under-specification rather than crispness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what comes back and where it lands. Instead it stops at the input, leaving the agent unable to predict the result, its location, or cost before invoking.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that folder_path holds 'source media assets' and that the output is 'commercial' in style, which slightly reinforces the prompt parameter without adding format or constraint detail.

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 description gives a specific verb ('Create') and a specific artifact ('assembled commercial montage reel') plus the input source ('folder of source media assets'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cineflow_export_mp4 or cineflow_quick_photo_animate, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. assets already uploaded, project initialized), and no pointer to a sibling when the agent wants a single export rather than an assembled reel. The only implied usage is the required folder_path argument.

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