Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reelfaceless-mcp

reelfaceless-mcp

by danyial
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

upload_video

Upload a local video file (MP4, MOV, or WebM up to 500 MB) and receive a media_id to use in create_post. Handles presigned upload and verification.

Instructions

Upload a local video file (MP4, MOV or WebM, max 500 MB) and return its media_id for create_post. Handles the presigned upload and verification.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "upload_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesAbsolute path to the video file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the presigned upload flow, verification step, and return value. It could be more specific about verification behavior, but overall adequately conveys safety profile (non-destructive data upload).

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 redundancy. The first sentence front-loads purpose and constraints; the second adds process detail. Every word 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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers file constraints, return value, and high-level process (presigned upload, verification). It does not explain error states but is adequate for typical use.

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 100% (single parameter file_path described as 'Absolute path'). The description adds no new parameter details beyond context (local file, format). Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Upload'), resource ('local video file'), constraints (MP4, MOV or WebM, max 500 MB), and output ('media_id for create_post'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on video upload rather than post creation or metrics.

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?

The description implies this tool is a prerequisite for create_post and specifies file format/size limits. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for other media types) or provide alternatives.

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