ffmpeg-mcp

image_to_video

Convert a static image to a video with a specified duration and frame rate.

Instructions

Convert a static image to a video with fixed duration

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": {
      "imagePath": "<imagePath>",
      "outputPath": "<outputPath>",
      "duration": "<duration>"
    },
    "name": "image_to_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fps`	No	Frames per second
`duration`	Yes	Duration in seconds
`imagePath`	Yes	Path to input image file
`outputPath`	Yes	Path for output video file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It does not mention if files are overwritten, required permissions, or how errors are handled. The description carries the full burden but provides minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a minimal overview but omits details like supported input formats, aspect ratio handling, and output codec. It is adequate for a straightforward conversion but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds limited value by reiterating 'fixed duration', but does not elaborate on parameter constraints like valid image formats or the effect of fps on output quality.

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 action ('Convert'), the resource ('static image to a video'), and a key constraint ('fixed duration'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like concat_videos and ffmpeg_raw.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context in which image_to_video is preferred over concat_videos or ffmpeg_raw.

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

Deploy Server