Inspect media files to retrieve container duration, resolution, codecs, and stream details via ffprobe, enabling AI agents to validate media before processing.
Inspect media container duration, resolution, codecs, and streams via ffprobe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| input_path | Yes | Path to media file inside workspace. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, what happens on non-media or missing files, or ffprobe availability requirements. Most notably it never explains why a read-only inspection tool accepts a 'dry_run' flag, which is a behavioral ambiguity an agent needs resolved.
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 with no filler; the verb, the inspected attributes, and the engine all appear immediately, and every clause contributes information.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, listing the returned attributes partially compensates for the missing return documentation. However, the unexplained 'dry_run' parameter and the absence of any file-type or failure behavior leave a real gap.
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 coverage is 50%: input_path is documented in the schema, but 'dry_run' has no description anywhere and the tool description adds nothing about its meaning or effect for an inspection call. The listed outputs (duration, resolution, codecs, streams) hint at what the path yields but do not clarify either parameter's semantics.
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 ("Inspect") and resource ("media container") and enumerates what is reported (duration, resolution, codecs, streams), plus the underlying implementation (ffprobe). It never names a sibling, but the read-only inspection intent is naturally distinct from the mutating siblings (trim, convert, extract, burn).
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or ordering guidance (e.g., "call before trim_clip to check resolution"). Usage is only inferable from the verb "Inspect" and the fact that every sibling transforms media.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.