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

FFmpeg-v2 MCP Server

by developerjillur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ffv2_job_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a media job's status, progress, typed error, and verification receipt by job ID to monitor FFmpeg-v2 jobs and confirm outputs.

Instructions

Job status, progress, typed error ও verification receipt পড়ুন।

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "ffv2_job_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response carries progress, typed errors, and a verification receipt, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about freshness, terminal states, or error semantics.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is close to being under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it is extraneous.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a status-polling tool the description omits polling behavior, terminal-state reporting, and the origin of job_id, leaving real gaps for an agent orchestrating a job.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions job_id at all. The only meaning comes from the schema's regex pattern; the description does not explain where the id comes from (e.g., returned by ffv2_submit) or what happens on an unknown id.

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 description states a specific verb (read) and resource (job status), and enumerates what is returned: progress, typed error, and verification receipt. It is distinguishable from the mutating siblings (ffv2_job_cancel, ffv2_job_retry), though it never names them or explicitly contrasts.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to call this versus ffv2_probe, ffv2_worker_start, or the cancel/retry siblings, and no mention of polling cadence or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is the read side of the job lifecycle.

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