Skip to main content
Glama

Image de couverture

montage_couverture

Extracts a JPEG or PNG frame from a video at a specified time and can format it to 1080×1920 for TikTok-style covers.

Instructions

Extrait une image de la vidéo à l'instant donné (JPEG ou PNG, sans métadonnées), en option mise au 1080×1920.

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nomNoNom de sortie (sans extension), rangé dans montages/.
modeNoMise au 9:16 (aucun par défaut : taille de la vidéo).
formatNojpg (défaut) ou png.
fichierYesVidéo source.
instantNoInstant en s (1 par défaut, ou le milieu si la vidéo est plus courte).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is JPEG or PNG with metadata stripped and that 1080×1920 scaling is optional, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, where the file lands, or what 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the parenthetical keeps the secondary details compact. The trailing 'en option mise au 1080×1920' is slightly awkwardly appended but costs little.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-frame extraction tool with a fully described schema, most needs are met. However, with no output schema, the description should say what the call returns or where the image is written, since 'sans métadonnées' is the only output-side information given.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults (instant=1, mode=aucun, format=jpg). The description only restates the format and scaling options, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Extrait une image de la vidéo') and clarifies the operation is a frame grab at a given instant. It does not explicitly position itself against siblings such as montage_format_tiktok or montage_decouper, but the extraction purpose 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many montage_* alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The use case (thumbnail generation) is only implied by the title and verb.

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