Detect horizontal and vertical progress bars, meters, gauges, and column fills in video; return frame-accurate fill_curve trajectories in [0.0, 1.0] for progress analysis.
Detects 1D horizontal & vertical progress bars, meters, gauges, and column fills, returning frame-accurate fill_curve trajectories in [0.0, 1.0].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_frames | No | ||
| video_path | Yes | ||
| min_duration_s | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the return contract (frame-accurate fill_curve trajectories normalized to [0.0, 1.0]) and an important scope limit (1D only, so radial/2D gauges are out). It says nothing about processing cost, failure modes on videos without bars, or whether detection is a pure read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs verb, target geometry, and return format with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a computer-vision video tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it explains what comes out but not how to drive it (frame budget, duration threshold) or what limits to expect. The one strong element, the output-range disclosure, does not offset the missing parameter and cost context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description never mentions video_path, max_frames, or min_duration_s — notably leaving the 0.65 s default unexplained (presumably a minimum fill-event duration). With no schema prose to fall back on, this gap is not compensated anywhere.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Detects) and a well-scoped resource (1D horizontal & vertical progress bars, meters, gauges, column fills), plus the output artifact (fill_curve). It implicitly separates itself from video_detect_stroke_draws and video_analyze_motion by naming the exact visual target, but never names a sibling explicitly, so routing still relies on inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No statement of when to use this versus video_detect_stroke_draws, video_analyze_motion, or video_extract_sound_triggers, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint of applicability is the detection target itself, which is closer to 'no guidance' than to explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.