Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Tennis Evolution

Tennis Evolution

by bobobo2026
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Inspect a tennis recording

probe_video
Read-only

Reads a local video’s duration, resolution, rotation, HDR/colour, audio tracks, and recording time to confirm it is readable before processing.

Instructions

Read duration, resolution, rotation, HDR/colour, audio tracks and recording time of a local video file. Run this first to confirm the file is readable.

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": {
      "video": "<video>"
    },
    "name": "probe_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
videoYesLocal video path.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description need not restate non-destructiveness. It adds useful workflow context (pre-flight check) and the local-file scope, but says nothing about failure behavior on an unreadable file or cost/latency, which is the value-add this dimension wants.

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, zero filler, and the output field list is front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description usefully enumerates the return fields so the agent knows what it will get back. Missing only error/edge-case behavior (unreadable or unsupported file), which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Local video path.'), so the schema does the work. The description implies a local path via 'local video file' but adds no format, extension, or path-convention detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (local video file) and enumerates exactly what is extracted: duration, resolution, rotation, HDR/colour, audio tracks, recording time. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling verify_video, and 'confirm the file is readable' partially overlaps with what a verification tool would plausibly do.

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?

'Run this first to confirm the file is readable' gives an explicit ordering/workflow instruction, so the agent knows when in a pipeline to call this. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. verify_video) or stating when-not-to-use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools