losslesscut-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Contact sheet

contact_sheet

Read-only

Generates a single grid image of evenly spaced frames so you can scan an entire video or segment cheaply, returning each tile's time left to right, top to bottom for later zooming.

Instructions

One image with a grid of evenly spaced frames, to scan a whole video (or a part) cheaply. Returns the time of each tile, left to right, top to bottom. Zoom in later with a smaller start/end or view_frames.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "contact_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No	End of the part to analyse (default: end of file)
`path`	Yes	Absolute path of a file the user gave you
`rows`	No
`start`	No	Start of the part to analyse (default: start of file)
`width`	No
`columns`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the return format (a single image), the tile ordering (left to right, top to bottom), and that per-tile times are returned. It does not discuss cost limits, resolution trade-offs, or what happens with pathological ranges, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and followed by the output convention and the escalation path. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six parameters, no output schema, and modest annotation coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, output shape, and the escalation route. The remaining shortfall is that the grid-shape parameters (rows, columns, width) are never explained anywhere.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description adds real meaning only for start/end, explaining that a smaller range zooms in. rows, columns, and width are left entirely to the schema, whose own descriptions for those fields are absent, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states concretely that the tool produces 'one image with a grid of evenly spaced frames' for scanning a video or a part of one, which is a specific verb+artifact. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling view_frames by positioning that tool as the zoom-in alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for use ('scan a whole video (or a part) cheaply') and names both alternatives for finer inspection: a narrower start/end or view_frames. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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