Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FFmpeg-v2 MCP Server

FFmpeg-v2 MCP Server

by developerjillur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ffv2_doctor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check installed FFmpeg, hardware capabilities, and live resource admission status without starting an encoding job.

Instructions

Installed FFmpeg, listed hardware capabilities ও live resource admission দেখুন। Encoding চালায় না।

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ffv2_doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the safety guarantees provided by the annotations (readOnlyHint: true), the description discloses specific functional behavior—namely, that it checks installation status, hardware admission, and explicitly states it is non-functional for encoding. This crucial limitation is not captured by the metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is overly informal and fragmented, mixing English and Bengali phrases (e.g., 'ও live resource admission দেখুন।'). While concise, the unprofessional structure and lack of precise terminology reduce its effectiveness for AI consumption.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given its role as a status/diagnostic checker with no parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It defines what the tool verifies (installation, hardware, admission) and what it explicitly cannot do (encoding).

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?

Since the tool accepts zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not add additional meaning or semantic value regarding non-existent inputs.

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?

The tool clearly identifies its function as a diagnostic and setup utility, specifically stating it installs FFmpeg and lists hardware capabilities. It also explicitly defines its scope by mentioning it does not run encoding, clearly distinguishing it from operational siblings like ffv2_submit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage during the setup or verification phase due to its focus on 'Installed' status and 'listed capabilities.' However, it does not explicitly instruct the user when to use this diagnostic tool versus, for example, using ffv2_probe for similar checks.

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