Combine multiple video clips into one file. Use demuxer for same-codec stream copy, or filter to re-encode for reliable merging across different formats.
Concatenate clips. method='demuxer' (same codec, stream copy) or 'filter' (re-encode, more robust).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | Yes | ||
| method | No | demuxer | |
| overwrite | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: stream copy vs re-encode, with a robustness tradeoff. However, it does not mention that overwrite defaults to true, what happens on failure, or any path-related restrictions, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the method distinction is packed compactly into the second sentence, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, this definition is not fully complete. It covers the important method decision and benefits from an output schema, but the overwrite behavior and allow_any_path guardrail are left unexplained, which could lead to incorrect invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to the 'method' parameter by explaining the two values and their tradeoffs. But it leaves inputs, output_path, overwrite, and allow_any_path semantically uncovered beyond their names and types.
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 uses a specific verb ('Concatenate') and resource ('clips'), which clearly conveys the core operation. It does not explicitly state that it produces a single output file or explain how it differs from sibling tools like compose_timeline, but the method qualifiers add useful specificity.
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?
The description gives practical method-level guidance: 'demuxer' is for same-codec stream copy and 'filter' is a re-encode for more robust concatenation. However, it does not say when to choose concat_clips over sibling tools such as run_ffmpeg or compose_timeline, so tool-selection context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.