Cut a video or audio clip between a start time and end time or duration to create a new output file. Set start/end or duration for precise media extraction.
Trim a video or audio clip between start_time and end_time/duration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| reencode | No | ||
| input_path | Yes | ||
| start_time | No | ||
| output_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about the two behavioral flags that matter most: dry_run (preview without writing) and reencode (defaulting to true, implying quality/speed tradeoffs). It also omits what happens on invalid ranges or whether output overwrites an existing file.
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 tight sentence with the key operation and time parameters front-loaded; no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves necessary detail for the other dimensions rather than bloating this one.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what reencode or dry_run do, what the time formats are, or what the tool returns.
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 7 parameters, and the description only names three of them without format detail — it does not clarify whether times are strings like '00:01:30' or numeric seconds, despite the union type. The required input_path/output_path and the dry_run/reencode flags receive no explanation at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Trim') and resource ('video or audio clip'), and it references the start/end/duration parameters, which makes the intent clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like extract_audio or convert_aspect_ratio, but the operation is distinct enough to be recognizable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., valid media path). The description is purely declarative about what it does, leaving the agent to infer the context in which trimming is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.