Apply a .cube LUT to a video clip to adjust colors with ffmpeg lut3d, producing a color-graded output file.
Apply a .cube LUT to a clip using ffmpeg lut3d.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| interp | No | tetrahedral | |
| lut_path | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| input_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes | ||
| allow_any_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only reveals that ffmpeg's lut3d filter is used. It does not disclose that overwrite defaults to true (a destructive trait), that allow_any_path implies default path validation, or what happens on failure.
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 front-loaded sentence stating the action, resource, and method with zero filler. Every word contributes something, and it is as compact as it can be while carrying the core purpose.
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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. Although an output schema exists, parameter semantics and behavioral edge cases are uncovered, leaving an agent to guess at interp options and path restrictions.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only adds a .cube format hint relevant to lut_path. interp's accepted values, the meaning of allow_any_path, and the overwrite behavior are all left unexplained.
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 (apply), resource (.cube LUT), target (clip), and mechanism (ffmpeg lut3d). The purpose is unambiguous and inherently distinct from the closest sibling generate_lut (create vs. apply) and from the generic run_ffmpeg.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_lut or run_ffmpeg. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., ffmpeg availability), exclusions, or conditions under which a sibling tool would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.