Analyze a video to extract technical facts and timeline events, including duration, fps, frame count, audio levels, scenes, bad frames, popups, and layout changes.
Video facts: duration,fps,size,frames,audio_db,scenes[t],bad_frames[{frame,t,kind}],popups[t],layout_changes[t].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video | Yes | video path (relative to workdir ok) |
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 behavioral burden. It lists returned fields, which suggests a read-only probe, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, expected failure modes, or whether the operation is non-mutating. Return fields alone are not behavioral disclosure.
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?
It is a single dense line with no filler and the resource is front-loaded before the field list. However, the unspaced comma-run makes the output fields harder to scan than a short structured list would be.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning. It enumerates top-level fields but leaves key semantics unexplained, such as what the '[t]' notation means, what values 'kind' in bad_frames can take, and how scenes or popups are structured.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'video path (relative to workdir ok)'. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the resource (video) and enumerates returned facts, but supplies no verb like 'extract' or 'inspect', so the action is only implied. It is enough to distinguish this from text-oriented siblings such as find_text and ocr_region, but does not crisply state what the tool does.
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 when-to-use guidance, no condition under which to prefer this over siblings like contact_sheet or chart_extract, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the triggering scenario entirely on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.