Cuts a video segment using start time and duration. Prefers stream copy for fast processing, then falls back to encoding to ensure accurate keyframe-aligned cuts.
Trim video. Auto attempts stream copy, then falls back to encoding; copy is keyframe-aligned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | auto | |
| input | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| output | Yes | ||
| duration | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about auto mode attempting stream copy, falling back to encoding, and keyframe alignment. However, it does not explain behavior of copy vs accurate modes, overwrite behavior, or permissions, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. 'Trim video' front-loads the purpose, and the second sentence packs key technical behavior efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits units for start/duration, mode semantics, edge cases, and output handling. A tool of this complexity needs more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. While it indirectly explains the auto mode's behavior, it does not clarify the meaning of start, duration, output, or the mode enum values. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Trim video.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like concat, overlay, and transform. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or differentiate conditions, so it stops short of full clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like concat or transform. It describes internal behavior but lacks any explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.