MoviePy MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation2/5
Several tools blur together: add_audio explicitly includes 'add or replace', overlapping with replace_audio; create_thumbnail and extract_frame both save a PNG frame; and create_custom_animation is a general-purpose engine that can reproduce many dedicated generators like create_bouncing_object, create_animated_scene, and create_animated_text. The editing tools are mostly distinct, but the creation tools have serious boundary confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5The vast majority of tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_, add_, get_, trim_, resize_, merge_, etc. The only notable deviation is picture_in_picture, which uses a noun phrase without a leading verb, but overall the naming is predictable and consistent.
Tool Count2/542 tools is well beyond the well-scoped range for an MCP server. Many of the creation tools are highly redundant template variations that could be consolidated into a smaller set, especially since create_custom_animation already provides generalized procedural animation.
Completeness4/5The server covers a broad video editing lifecycle: importing/inspecting video, trimming, splitting, merging, transforming, audio editing, overlays, effects, and export. Minor gaps like color filters, subtitle support, or additional export formats exist, but most common video editing workflows are supported without dead ends.
Average 2.8/5 across 42 of 42 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Create a countdown animation' essentially restates the tool name. It does not explain how the countdown behaves, what defaults apply, what output is produced, or whether the result is composable with other edits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It mostly mirrors the tool name and provides almost no operational information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. A complete description would clarify countdown semantics, the meaning of the background parameter, and output expectations. None of this is present, making the definition inadequate for reliable autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters: width, height, seconds, or background. The agent receives no explanation of what these values mean or how defaults behave.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource, 'countdown animation', with the verb 'Create', so an agent can tell the intended result. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling animation tools like create_custom_animation or create_animated_scene, which weakens distinction slightly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling animation and video-creation tools. There are no prerequisites, examples, or exclusionary conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but not how the overlay behaves, whether the input video is modified or a new file is produced, how defaults like opacity/duration/scale apply, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with nine parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clean sentence with no filler, so it is concise in that sense. However, given the tool's complexity, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized; it lacks the structural detail that would make it genuinely useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though an output schema exists, the description is far from complete for a tool with nine parameters, two required inputs, no annotation guidance, and multiple similar siblings. An agent cannot correctly determine parameter semantics, expected outputs, or usage boundaries from this definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information at all. While property names like x, y, scale, opacity, and duration hint at their roles, the description does not clarify meanings, ranges, or relationships (e.g., what 'start' refers to, whether opacity is 0–1, or how output_path default works). The description must compensate for the uncovered schema, and it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add an image on top of a video.' This clearly identifies the core operation. However, it does not differentiate the tool from nearby siblings like picture_in_picture or add_text, which could also serve overlay-like purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With more than 40 sibling tools, including picture_in_picture and add_text, the agent is not told which tool is appropriate for which scenario. The description only implies the obvious use case without exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the action and the content. It does not disclose output-file behavior, overwrite semantics, or any 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is compact and front-loaded with no filler. However, for an 8-parameter tool it is too thin to be considered appropriately sized, so it is not more than adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no parameter documentation, and a large sibling list, a 9-word description cannot support correct selection and invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but the agent still lacks usage alternatives and parameter meaning.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the 8 parameters. It only hints that the text is centered, which does not clarify width, height, duration, colors, font size, or output_path.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool creates a complete video with centered text, a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough about the high-level purpose but does not distinguish it from sibling tools like create_animated_text or create_typing_text_video.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description does not explain whether to pick this over create_animated_text, create_typing_text_video, or add_text, so an agent must infer use on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the core action without disclosing side effects, audio handling, output format, or whether the operation is reversible. Agents are left without crucial information about the tool's behavior beyond the obvious overlay.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence) and free of fluff, but it is not structured to front-load critical information like parameter semantics or usage context. It is concise but lacks meaningful content, so the structure is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles, output behavior, typical use cases, or any constraints. Agents will struggle to call this tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameter meanings, but it does not mention any of the 8 parameters. Even seemingly self-explanatory ones like x, y, scale, and duration require clarification on units, coordinate origins, and behavior when omitted. The description adds no value over the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Put... on top of') and resource ('video'), making the basic purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also overlay content (e.g., add_image_overlay, add_text), so agents cannot easily distinguish when to pick this one over related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not explain whether the video is modified in place, whether an output file is always created, how the overlay is composited, or any limitations, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action clearly and nothing more, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, a one-sentence summary of the operation is far from sufficient. It lacks essential details about output path behavior, timing units, position syntax, color format, and defaults, so an agent could not confidently invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names none of the 8 parameters. There is no explanation of text, color, position, start, duration, fontsize, input_path, or output_path, so parameter semantics are entirely undocumented and the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Add', and a clear resource, 'text overlay to a video', making the core purpose easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like add_image_overlay or create_text_video, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is the right choice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or trade-offs relative to the many text and overlay-related sibling tools, so an agent has to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It says only that an animation is created; it does not state what kind of output is produced, whether files are written, whether the operation is deterministic, or what 'physics-inspired' means concretely (e.g., gravity affects the ball).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words; every word contributes to the core concept. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many overlapping sibling tools, this description is under-specified. An agent can infer the basic intent but cannot confidently understand gravity units, duration semantics, output behavior, or when to prefer this over a sibling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about width, height, gravity, or duration. Units and expected ranges for gravity and duration are entirely unclear, leaving the agent to guess or rely on defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a physics-inspired bouncing ball animation'), which separates it from many sibling animation tools by naming the exact subject matter. It does not explicitly contrast itself with similar create_* tools like create_moving_object_video or create_custom_animation, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many similar animation tools (e.g., create_moving_object_video, create_particle_animation, create_custom_animation). The intended use is implied by the name and the word 'bouncing,' but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does 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 only says a particle field is created, but it does not explain what output is produced, whether this is a new video/animation file, whether existing files are overwritten, or what side effects may occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, but the brevity sacrifices valuable detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the result looks like, how it is returned, or what assets are produced, leaving an agent to guess if this is the right tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the five parameters. 'Animated particle field' only weakly hints at particle_count and dimensions, and nothing clarifies duration or background color semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('an animated particle field'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like create_animated_scene or create_custom_animation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 over the many sibling animation tools. There are no alternatives, exclusions, or context clues beyond the phrase 'from scratch,' which is too vague to route an agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create...' and discloses no side effects, defaults, output format, or constraints. For a generative tool that produces a video, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler and front-loads the action. It is concise to a fault, but the under-specification is penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description does not explain how the parameters shape the result, what the default behavior is, or what is returned. This is adequate only for the most trivial no-argument invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention width, height, or duration. The default values in the schema are the only semantic information available, so the description adds no parameter-level value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a concrete resource ('animated loading/progress bar'), which distinguishes it from many sibling animation tools such as create_countdown_video. It doesn't explicitly say 'video', but the tool name and schema make that clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings; it doesn't name alternatives like create_countdown_video or create_custom_animation, nor state any exclusion conditions. The only usage cue is the generic purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the output format 'PNG,' but it does not disclose whether the source video is modified, where the PNG is saved, what happens if the time parameter is invalid, or how the default time=0 behaves. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is easy to parse quickly, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is below minimum viable completeness. It confirms the output format but omits time semantics, output destination, side effects, and differentiation from the sibling 'extract_frame.' An agent could guess the basic action but would not have enough context to invoke it with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain `input_video` or `time` beyond implying that a frame is extracted. The meaning of `time`—units, bounds, valid range—is entirely undocumented. With no schema descriptions and no compensation in the tool description, parameter semantics are essentially absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Extract a frame from a video and save it as PNG.' This clearly identifies the operation and output format. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'extract_frame,' which appears to perform a similar frame-extraction operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives, especially sibling 'extract_frame.' There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use this for preview thumbnails.' An agent must infer the intended use from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level effect. It does not mention input validation, output format, rendering behavior, defaults, or side effects. The agent is left unaware of what happens beyond 'create a typing animation'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though it may be too short to carry the information burden required by the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, expected output, or how it differs from similar animation-creation tools, so an agent has only minimal information to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Width, height, duration, and font_size are completely unexplained; even 'text' is only implied by the tool name. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('typing-machine style text animation'), which is more distinctive than a generic 'text video'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_text_video or create_animated_text, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies a special text animation style, it never states when to prefer this over create_text_video or other animation tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'apply a smooth zoom-in effect' and does not state whether it creates a new file, overwrites the input, or what result is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler, and the core effect is front-loaded. It is concise rather than fully developed, so it stops short of a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a transformation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits output format, the role of zoom_amount, and any prerequisites. An agent can guess the action but lacks enough detail to invoke it correctly with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters. It does not define the expected format for input_video or explain how zoom_amount behaves beyond the schema's bare type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific operation ('Apply') on a concrete resource ('a video') with a particular effect ('smooth zoom-in'). It is easily distinguished from the sibling create_pan_animation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or alternative-routing information is provided. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to choose this over create_custom_animation or create_pan_animation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the operation and discloses nothing about output format, side effects, whether the input file is modified, or how audio is handled. For a mutating tool this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, which is good for conciseness. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative — brevity at the cost of essential guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior, parameter requirements, and effect on audio. It does none of this, making the tool underspecified for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, input_video, with 0% description coverage. The description adds no detail about what the parameter should be (path, URL, video ID), accepted formats, or constraints. The variable name is suggestive but insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Reverse a video.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from many siblings like rotate_video or trim_video. However, it does not clarify nuances such as whether audio is reversed too or what 'reverse' means exactly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, even though the sibling list includes related transformations like loop_video and change_speed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does 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 only says the audio track is added or replaced, without explaining what happens to an existing audio track, how output_path is handled by default, or whether the original file is modified. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and contextual detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not address output file behavior, volume handling, or when to use this tool versus replace_audio, even if an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter. The parameter names like input_path, audio_path, volume, and output_path are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no details about formats, defaults, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear operation: adding or replacing a video's audio track. It is specific about the resource and action, but overlaps with the sibling tool 'replace_audio', so it does not fully distinguish itself from that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus 'replace_audio', 'remove_audio', or 'adjust_volume'. The description gives no context for choosing between add_audio and replace_audio, which is especially important given the explicit overlap in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a video and enumerates animation styles, but it does not describe the output format, return behavior, side effects, or any constraints beyond the animation list. For a creation tool, this is 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The animation list is useful and compact, though it could be more structured by labeling it as the allowed values for the animation parameter. Overall, there is no irrelevant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given eight parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation. It only covers the animation values and misses parameter semantics, usage context, and output expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 documenting parameters. It only adds meaning for the animation parameter by listing valid values. The other seven parameters (text, width, height, duration, font_size, background, text_color) are left to their names and defaults, with no explanatory context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an animated text video, using a specific verb and resource. It lists concrete animation options, which helps identify the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings like create_text_video or create_typing_text_video.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_text_video or create_typing_text_video. The animation list implies a context of animated text, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It discloses the core creation operation but omits side effects such as whether an existing output_path is overwritten, what format/codec is produced, or whether additional resources are created.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It loses one point only because the extreme brevity leaves needed semantics to the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, zero annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what kind of video is produced, default parameter behavior, or how create_background fits with sibling composition tools. The output schema does not compensate for missing parameter and workflow context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not enumerate or explain any parameter. It weakly implies that b/g/r denote color components and that dimensions/duration/output_path relate to the video, but it does not specify units, ranges, or the role of output_path beyond the schema defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a solid-color video background') and the 'solid-color' qualifier distinguishes it from gradient or animated scene siblings. It does not explicitly identify a sibling, but the purpose is immediately understandable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as create_gradient_animation or create_animated_scene. There is no mention of prerequisites, placement in a pipeline, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that a video is generated but does not mention output format, destination, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal behavioral coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. 'Animated moving' is slightly redundant, but overall it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return values, output file handling, and relationship to sibling generation tools unspecified. An agent can invoke it with defaults, but the surrounding behavior is not fully described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about width, height, or duration, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The parameter names are self-explanatory at a basic level, but units (e.g., seconds for duration) and value constraints are left unstated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific action ('Generate') and a concrete deliverable ('animated moving gradient video'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It distinguishes the resource type by mentioning 'gradient,' though it does not actively contrast itself with similar animation-creation siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of create_custom_animation, create_animated_scene, or other animation tools. The description implies a use case but offers no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the video contains a moving object and does not disclose motion behavior, output format, defaults beyond the schema, or side effects. It adds no meaningful behavioral detail beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded, and contains no filler; the object_type values are useful and earn their place. It could be slightly clearer by labeling the list as supported values, but the structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 optional-but-meaningful parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains only the core purpose and one parameter. An agent can invoke it with defaults, but it lacks enough context to predict how the object moves or what it will receive back.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only documents object_type with allowed values (circle, square, triangle). Width, height, duration, background, and object_color receive no explanation, leaving five of six parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Create a video') and a specific resource ('moving geometric object'), and it lists the supported object types. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like create_bouncing_object or create_animated_scene, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over create_bouncing_object, create_custom_animation, or other animation siblings. The object_type list is parameter documentation, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does 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 conveys only the core crossfade action but omits important details such as whether the output is a new video, how durations are handled, whether audio is affected, or if transitions require matching video properties.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no wordiness and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with three parameters this is minimal but usable; however, the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations means the agent must rely on inference for behavior, return value, and transition semantics. Important context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any parameters. While video1 and video2 are relatively self-explanatory, transition_duration has no units or semantic context beyond its default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation as 'crossfade from one video into another,' naming the verb and the resource. It is specific enough to identify what the tool does, though it does not differentiate it from similar tools like merge_videos or fade_video.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as merge_videos or fade_video. There is no mention of prerequisites, order of operations, or whether the user should also call export_video afterward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions that a video is exported as MP4 and lists quality presets. It does not describe output_path default behavior, whether the input is modified, file overwrite behavior, or failure conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by a terse list of quality values. There is no filler, though the quality list could have been better integrated or structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters, one required parameter, and no annotations or schema descriptions, this is too thin. An agent cannot determine how input_path and output_path relate, what fps does, or what side effects or limitations exist. The presence of an output schema does not make up for missing parameter and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only documents quality values. The required input_path, the meaning of fps, and the behavior of output_path when left as an empty string are all left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Export'), the resource ('a video'), and the target format ('as MP4'). This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling editing and creation tools, though it does not explicitly frame it as a final rendering step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when in a workflow it should be called, or what the expected inputs and outputs should be. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the extract action and does not disclose whether the input video is modified, what output artifact is produced, or what formats/paths are expected. The behavior is too underspecified for a media-processing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient for a one-parameter tool. It is appropriately brief but it also omits details, so it is not maximally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complexity is low and the schema is small, but the complete absence of annotations and output schema means the description should explain the return value or artifact produced. It does not, so an agent has insufficient context to know what a successful call yields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining input_video beyond the video source. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about accepted formats, file paths, or how the extracted audio is returned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('audio from a video'), making the core operation clear and semantically distinct from siblings like extract_frame, remove_audio, and replace_audio. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to choose extract_audio versus related audio/video tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or notes about using alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the PNG output but omits important behavior such as the unit of 'time', how the output is returned or saved, and what happens for invalid or out-of-range frame times.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key action and output format. Brevity is good, but it omits necessary parameter and usage details that could have been added without much bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is too sparse. An agent is left without time units, input_video format expectations, output delivery details, or error behavior, so it cannot reliably invoke the tool in non-obvious cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds little explicit parameter meaning. It implies that 'time' selects the frame and that 'input_video' names the source, but it does not specify units, accepted formats, or path conventions beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Extract'), the target ('a specific video frame'), and the result format ('PNG'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like freeze_frame or create_thumbnail by specifying a still-frame PNG output, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as freeze_frame or create_thumbnail. No use cases, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the core action. It omits critical behavioral details such as fade duration units, whether the operation mutates the input or produces a new file, and what happens when both fade values are 0 (default).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with the core concept front-loaded and zero filler. It is concise in form, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than complete coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is inadequate for reliable invocation. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks essential information about fade duration units and output_path semantics, making incorrect calls likely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 four undocumented parameters, but it only weakly maps fade_in/fade_out to the fade-in/fade-out concept. Essential semantics such as time units for the numeric fade parameters and the meaning of an empty output_path default are entirely missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('apply') and specifies the exact operation ('audio fade-in and/or fade-out'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The 'audio' qualifier helps distinguish it from sibling fade_video, though the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 closely related siblings such as fade_video, crossfade_videos, or adjust_volume. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative-selection hints, so the agent must guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not explain what happens to the rest of the video, whether the output is a new video, whether duration is inserted or replaced, or how audio is affected. Those are material behavior gaps for a video-mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the main idea immediately, but its brevity omits necessary context, so it is concise rather than complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this short description is insufficient. An agent is left guessing about time units, video output behavior, parameter semantics, and edge cases. The definition needs more detail to be safely invocable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 the undocumented parameters. It weakly implies freeze_time selects the frame and freeze_duration controls the hold length, but it does not clarify units, allowed ranges, or the meaning of input_video. The default freeze_duration of 2 is also not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Freeze a selected frame and hold it for a duration.' This clearly conveys a video-editing freeze operation and distinguishes it from the sibling extract_frame, which would not 'hold' the frame. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It is only a statement of what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it over related tools like extract_frame or create_zoom_animation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does 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 only states the core action and does not mention output format, whether audio is included, loop semantics, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so terse that some necessary information is omitted, though conciseness itself is handled well.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is incomplete for selecting and invoking it correctly. It lacks information about loop counting, input video constraints, audio behavior, and expected output. With no annotations or output schema, the agent is left with too much ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no detail about the 'input_video' or 'loops' parameters. The phrase 'multiple times' loosely maps to 'loops,' but it does not explain the default semantics, valid values, or input requirements. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Repeat a video multiple times.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reverse_video or freeze_frame, which perform different operations. However, it does not clarify whether 'loops' includes the original playback, leaving minor ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what context requires looping. It is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove audio' implies a mutating operation, but it does not explain whether the input file is modified, whether a new file is produced, whether audio removal is destructive, or what the output looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices informative detail that other dimensions require.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter, the tool lacks sufficient context about output behavior, side effects, and how to specify the input. The schema and output schema offer no additional information, so the description is incomplete for trustworthy invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single required parameter, input_video, and the schema provides no description. The tool description also does not explain what format input_video should take, such as a file path, URL, or uploaded asset, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Remove audio from a video.' It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with extract_audio or replace_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use remove_audio versus alternatives like extract_audio, replace_audio, or fade_audio. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'Replace' communicates that the existing audio will be overwritten, which is an important destructive behavior. However, with no annotations or output schema, the description does not clarify whether the original video file is modified in place, whether a new file is produced, or what happens to the previous audio track.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity comes at the expense of critical supporting details that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive media operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is too sparse to be complete. It omits expected inputs, return behavior, and safety implications, all of which the agent would need for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that input_video is the source video and audio_file is the replacement audio, so the agent receives no semantic support beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('the video's existing audio'), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like add_audio or remove_audio, which would have made the distinction stronger.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to choose replace_audio over alternatives such as add_audio, remove_audio, or fade_audio. The description only defines the operation and leaves the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not explain angle units, rotation direction, whether the input file is overwritten, or what happens when output_path is empty. These are significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words and is appropriately front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail, so it is not a perfect conciseness score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. Key information about the output path behavior, rotation semantics, and possible angle restrictions is missing, making it minimally usable for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only loosely references 'the specified angle'. It does not clarify input_path expectations, output_path default behavior, or angle constraints/units.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Rotate') applied to a specific resource ('a video') and references the angle parameter. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like mirror_video or reverse_video.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The intended use is only implied by the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'concatenate multiple videos sequentially' and does not mention whether the operation is non-destructive, what happens to audio tracks, how output is generated when output_path is empty, or any 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of five words, front-loading the essential action with no filler or redundancy. It is maximally concise and well-structured for a tool of this simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description does not explain the output_path default behavior, the minimum number of input videos required, or how the result differs from sibling merge/crossfade operations. For a tool with no annotations and a 0% schema coverage, this is a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely maps to input_paths via 'multiple videos'. It provides no explanation of output_path, its default value, or the fact that ordering in input_paths likely determines the concatenation order. This is insufficient compensation for the absent schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'concatenate' and resource 'multiple videos' with the adverb 'sequentially', making the core operation clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like crossfade_videos or create_slideshow_video, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no context about when to choose merge_videos over alternatives such as crossfade_videos or create_slideshow_video. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or use-case guidance, so the agent must infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the original file is modified, whether a new file is always created, what happens if output_path is empty, or how the video container/streams are handled. The bare 'Trim' phrasing leaves important behavioral traits unstated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation and the key information (trim by time range) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large sibling list and lack of annotations, this description is too thin for reliable agent selection and invocation. It does not clarify output_path default behavior, units beyond 'seconds', or how trimming relates to other cutting/editing tools, leaving meaningful gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only clarifies that start and end are seconds, but does not explain input_path semantics, output_path optionality/default behavior, or the relationship between start/end and the output file.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Trim a video') with the specific operation 'between start and end seconds', which conveys the time-based nature of the cut. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like split_video or crop_video, so it is not a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as split_video, crop_video, or reverse_video. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the pan is 'camera-like' and across an 'oversized video,' which hints at the key prerequisite, but it does not explain output behavior, duration, speed, crop behavior, or how the pan is executed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the direction options listed compactly. It could be slightly more structured, but there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, this description is too sparse for a mutation tool. An agent would still need to infer important details about the input video requirements, pan behavior, and default settings beyond direction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing valid direction values ('left, right, up, down'). However, it does not explicitly document the input_video parameter, although 'across an oversized video' implies its role. The direction documentation adds real value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear specific action: 'Create a camera-like pan across an oversized video.' It distinguishes itself from nearby animation tools like create_zoom_animation by focusing on panning rather than zooming, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as create_zoom_animation or create_moving_object_video. The description implies the tool is for panning effects, but it provides no context, alternatives, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Resize a video' and gives examples. It does not disclose what happens if both width+height and scale are provided, whether the output overwrites the input, or the meaning of an empty output_path.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded, and easy to scan, with helpful examples. It earns its place without excessive padding, though a small structured note on path parameters would improve it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with five parameters and no annotations, this is incomplete: it omits precedence rules, path behavior, and what the output represents. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the remaining ambiguities are material for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the alternatives among scale, width, and height with examples, but it leaves input_path and output_path semantics implicit and does not clarify defaults or parameter constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific operation ('Resize a video') and the resource it acts on, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like crop_video or rotate_video, though the term 'resize' is reasonably self-explanatory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides no guidance on when to choose resize_video over alternative tools; no exclusions or sibling comparisons are given. The 'use either width+height or scale' note is parameter usage, not tool selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and output; it does not clarify whether the original file is preserved, how output files are named, whether re-encoding occurs, or what file formats are produced. For a transformation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and outcome. It is appropriately terse and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous required parameter, this description is not sufficient for correct invocation. It omits split_time semantics, output behavior, and edge-case constraints, so an agent is left guessing at critical details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. While 'input_video' is inferable from its name, 'split_time' is entirely unspecified: its unit (seconds, milliseconds, percentage) and valid range are unknown, so an agent cannot correctly supply the value without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('split') and resource ('a video') and adds the clear outcome 'into two separate files.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trim_video (which produces a single trimmed segment) and merge_videos (which combines videos). The operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to choose split_video over alternatives such as trim_video or crossfade_videos. There is no mention of scenarios, constraints, or conditions that would point an agent to this tool, leaving the decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and does not disclose coordinate origin, whether the crop is performed in place or creates a new file, the role of the optional output_path, or any 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The core action and the key qualifier 'pixel coordinates' are front-loaded, making it appropriately compact for this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this description is insufficiently complete. It lacks coordinate semantics, output path behavior, and any guidance on how the cropped video is returned or stored. The presence of an output schema may cover return shape, but it does not cover the missing behavioral and parameter detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds only the general hint that the coordinates are pixel-based, but it does not explain which corner x1/y1 and x2/y2 represent, coordinate system origin, or the meanings of input_path and output_path.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'crop' with the resource 'video' and adds 'pixel coordinates', which distinguishes it from time-based operations like trim_video and dimension-based operations like resize_video. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or define the coordinate frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is only implied: an agent can infer to use this tool when a video needs cropping by pixel coordinates. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools are better alternatives for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the volume mapping (1.0 original, 0.5 half, 2.0 double, 0.0 mute), which adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention side effects, whether the original file is overwritten, or what output is produced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action, followed by a clean list of volume value mappings. Every line earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns or changes, but it doesn't. It also omits usage context and prerequisites. The volume semantics are well covered, but the overall definition is incomplete for an agent needing to know the full behavior and result of the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the volume parameter clearly through examples and implies input_video is the video whose audio is modified. It doesn't detail the format or path of input_video, but the parameter name and action make it reasonably clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Change' and the resource 'video's audio volume', making the tool's purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fade_audio, but the concept of volume adjustment is distinct enough among the provided tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fade_audio, remove_audio, or replace_audio. The volume scale examples are useful for invocation but do not provide context for when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that playback speed changes. It does not mention side effects such as whether audio pitch is preserved, whether a new file is created, or whether an empty output_path means in-place modification. For a mutation operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence, followed by a compact and well-formatted legend for the speed parameter. Every line serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema is present, so return values need not be explained in the description. However, the tool lacks critical context around file handling—specifically, what an empty `output_path` means and whether the input file is overwritten. This makes the description minimally viable but not fully complete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics to the `speed` parameter by defining 0.5 = slow motion, 1.0 = normal, and 2.0 = 2x faster, which the schema does not provide. Although `input_path` and `output_path` are left unexplained, their purpose is conventional; the speed legend is a strong compensation given the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: changing video playback speed, with concrete speed values (0.5, 1.0, 2.0) that reinforce the meaning. It is a specific verb+resource statement, and although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, no other listed tool handles playback speed, so it is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about related operations like reversing or freezing video. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and purpose, which is insufficient for routing an agent when a large set of sibling tools exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the video is procedural and requires no source footage, and it enumerates scene_type options. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it creates a file, or any side effects, leaving the behavior only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the main action is stated first, followed by the scene_type list and a short usage note. There is no filler, but the brevity comes at the cost of parameter and behavior details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling generator tools, the description leaves important gaps. It does not clarify color formats, duration units, output behavior, or how this tool differs from create_custom_animation or create_moving_object_video. The scene_type list is helpful but insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only compensates for scene_type by listing allowed values. Parameters like width, height, duration, background, and object_color receive no explanation, leaving units, formats, and meaning implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a procedural animated video completely from scratch.' The scene_type list further clarifies what kind of scene is supported. It does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like create_bouncing_object or create_moving_object_video, so 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use the tool: 'Useful when the user asks for a simple animated scene without providing source footage.' This gives a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does 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 only names the operation and does not clarify duration units, whether the input video is modified or a new file is produced, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a transformation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent. It omits input format expectations, units, and the nature of the result, though the simple parameter set slightly mitigates the incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of fade_in, fade_out, or input_video beyond matching the fade concepts. It fails to communicate units (e.g., seconds) or that the default values are already applied, leaving the agent to infer crucial details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('video fade-in and fade-out'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The explicit mention of 'video' distinguishes it from the sibling tool fade_audio without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool through the word 'video', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as fade_audio or crossfade_videos, nor does it state any exclusions. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the core transformation and does not explain whether the tool writes a new file, honors output_path, overwrites the input, or preserves video properties such as duration and codec.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core operation. It is appropriately sized for a simple transformation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It lacks guidance on path semantics, defaults, and side effects, even though the presence of an output schema covers return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and while the phrase 'horizontally or vertically' clarifies possible direction values, it adds no meaning for the required input_path or the optional output_path. Most parameters remain undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Mirror' with a clear resource ('a video') and the two axes 'horizontally or vertically.' This distinguishes it from siblings like rotate_video, crop_video, or resize_video at a glance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied by the unique operation 'mirror,' but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related alternatives, and it provides no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the transition choices but says nothing about the default transition, how seconds_per_image affects the output, what the generated video looks like, or what system effects (if any) occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a generation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is useful and compact, though it could be cleaner by mentioning seconds_per_image instead of trailing off after transition options.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without annotations or an output schema, the description must provide enough context for safe and correct invocation. It fails to cover seconds_per_image, default behavior, or return/output characteristics, so an agent can only use the tool in its most basic form and cannot customize pacing or anticipate the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document image_paths and the transition values fade/none, but it completely omits seconds_per_image, leaving a core parameter whose purpose (duration per image) cannot be inferred from the bare schema. This is a meaningful omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a video slideshow from image files'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_text_video or create_bouncing_object by its input type and output type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from image files' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the agent needs to turn images into a slideshow video. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of fully explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates read-only behavior via 'Get' and lists the expected return fields, but it does not mention error cases, supported file formats, access requirements, or what happens for invalid input. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean bulleted list for return values. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the purpose and the returned fields. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage context, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent deciding how and when to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description gives no additional meaning for 'input_path' beyond what the schema already shows. The name is somewhat self-explanatory as the location of the video, but no format, path type, or validation details are provided to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves basic information about a video and enumerates the returned fields: duration, width, height, fps. This is a distinct read-only operation compared to the many sibling tools that create, transform, or edit videos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any preconditions or context mentioned. An agent must infer that this is the inspection step before other operations; no explicit usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the scene is animated and that the character is composed of multiple independently animated shapes. However, it does not describe output format, how animation timing works, or side effects—though creation tools are generally low-risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear bullet-style list for the included components. The final sentence adds meaningful detail about independent animation without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately communicates what the tool produces, especially given four optional parameters with defaults. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around return format, animation timing, and parameter behavior, so an agent has to make reasonable assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention width, height, duration, or background. The parameter names and defaults provide some surface-level meaning, but the description adds no semantic detail about units, constraints, or how these parameters affect the scene.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a complete animated stick-figure running scene.' It then enumerates the exact components (head, body, arms, legs, ground, shadow), distinguishing this tool from the many generic animation siblings like create_animated_scene and create_custom_animation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a complete animated stick-figure running scene is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the output is specific enough that an agent can infer the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers substantial detail: object types, individually animatable properties, expression functions, and render order ('Later objects appear on top of earlier objects'). It does not describe output file behavior or side effects, but the 'create' nature and output_name parameter make the main behavior clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with bullets, a code example, and a scannable list of use cases. A few phrases are redundant with the opening ('Multiple objects can exist in the same scene'), but the structure is front-loaded and every major section supports invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is strong for a simple circle-based animation but incomplete for the full claimed surface. It supports text objects yet gives no hint of text-specific fields, and it does not explain coordinate system, expression timing, or returned output. Given no output schema and no annotations, an agent would still need to guess for advanced object types.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add essential meaning for the 'objects' parameter via a concrete circle example and expression-language documentation, but top-level parameters like fps, duration, background, and output_name are not explained in the description. The defaults and names are somewhat self-explanatory, leaving this minimally viable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The opening line is specific: 'Create a complete multi-object animated video from scratch.' The description further identifies the tool as a 'general-purpose procedural animation engine' and lists supported object types and animation properties, which distinguishes it from specialized siblings like create_stick_figure_runner or create_pan_animation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: use this when you need a multi-object, procedurally driven animation built from primitives. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'general-purpose' framing and complex scene examples imply the intended scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Sahilkumar8084/Moviepy-MCP---Server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server