ffmpeg-mcp

remove_silence

Detect and remove silent segments from a video, keeping only non-silent parts. Configure silence detection with noise threshold and minimum silence duration parameters.

Instructions

Detect and remove silent segments from a video, keeping only non-silent parts

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": {
      "inputPath": "<inputPath>",
      "outputPath": "<outputPath>"
    },
    "name": "remove_silence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inputPath`	Yes	Path to input video file
`outputPath`	Yes	Path for output video file
`noiseThreshold`	No	Audio level threshold for silence detection (e.g., '-30dB')	-30dB
`minSilenceDuration`	No	Minimum duration in seconds to consider as silence

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden but only states basic functionality. Missing details on how silent segments are removed (e.g., splicing, speed changes), output consequences, or limitations.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. However, it could include additional useful context without being verbose.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. Description lacks explanations of return value, behavior for edge cases, or how parameters interact. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present in the schema.

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 detects and removes silent segments from a video, keeping only non-silent parts. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like cut_video which cuts by time or frames.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cut_video or ffmpeg_raw. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server