losslesscut-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Check LosslessCut connection

check_connection

Read-only

Verifies LosslessCut is running with its HTTP API enabled and reachable on 127.0.0.1, so you can confirm the app is ready for AI-driven editing.

Instructions

Checks that LosslessCut is running with its HTTP API enabled and reachable on 127.0.0.1.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description usefully adds which conditions are actually verified (process running, API enabled, loopback reachability), but says nothing about failure behavior or what a failed check looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (running, API enabled, reachable, 127.0.0.1) carries distinct diagnostic meaning.

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 trivial zero-parameter read-only probe this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should indicate what the response conveys (e.g., success/failure indication or remediation hint). That is the remaining gap for an agent deciding what to do after a negative result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The description correctly implies the check is parameterless and targets a fixed local address.

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 states a concrete verb ('Checks') and a concrete condition set: LosslessCut running, HTTP API enabled, reachable on 127.0.0.1. That is far more specific than the name/title, though it does not contrast itself with the closest sibling, check_tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that this is a preflight/health check to run before invoking other LosslessCut tools, and no mention of alternatives such as check_tools. The agent must infer the usage pattern from the name alone.

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