VidMCP

by dhirajlochib

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as plan_cuts, apply_cut_plan, and smart_cut_hesitations all dealing with cutting/trimming, and generate_thumbnail vs generate_thumbnails. Descriptions help somewhat but agents may misselect.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names use a mix of verbs (add, apply, create, export, generate, get, import, list, mix, plan, process, project_brief, replace, run, set, smart_cut, transcribe) without a consistent pattern, making it harder to predict functionality.
Tool Count3/5
With 27 tools, the count is high but partially mitigated by the tool pack system that reduces the active set. However, the total number still feels heavy for a single server.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full workflow from project creation to export, including audio, graphics, thumbnails, recipes, and health checks. There are no obvious gaps for its intended domain of video editing automation.
Average 3.2/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only cryptically mentions a lock pattern ('lock='speech:<kw>'') without explaining behavior (e.g., mutability, side effects, permissions). Virtually no transparency.
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 description is a single cryptic sentence with an ellipsis. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and omits critical information, making it insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a required flexible array and an output schema, the description provides no return value info, no behavior details, and no parameter guidance. It is grossly incomplete for effective agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to explain the 'items' array structure or the 'brand' parameter beyond listing example graphics types. The lock pattern is not mapped to any parameter, leaving interpretation entirely to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions specific overlay types ('lower_third, title_card, stat_counter, charts') and a lock pattern, indicating the tool adds brand motion graphics. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'adds graphics to a project') and lacks clear differentiation from sibling 'add_speech_infographics'.
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?
The examples imply usage for brand overlays, but there is no guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_speech_infographics' or 'apply_recipe'. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, safety, permissions). Does not mention read-only or destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short with minimal waste, but the first sentence is a noun phrase lacking clarity. Sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 3 parameters and an output schema, description does not explain return values or how to use the tool effectively. Incomplete for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no explanations for parameters (project_id, aggressiveness, keep_dramatic_pauses). Agent cannot infer parameter meanings or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description lists topics (retakes, fillers, pauses) but lacks explicit verb like 'generates' or 'creates'. It does not differentiate from related siblings like 'smart_cut_hesitations' or 'apply_cut_plan'.
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?
Only instruction is 'Review before apply,' hinting at workflow, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. No guidance on when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Run a named production recipe' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it modifies the input video, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to inform agents of the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description and schema together fail to provide complete context. With 0% parameter documentation and no behavioral notes, an agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool, especially with required parameters like 'video_path' undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
None of the four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (0% coverage), and the description itself only provides examples for 'recipe_name'. Critical parameters like 'video_path', 'project_name', and 'max_render_frames' are left entirely unexplained, offering no additional meaning beyond their basic names and types.
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 clearly states that the tool runs a named production recipe and provides specific examples like 'cyberpunk_talking_head', making the purpose easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_cut_plan' or 'run_intent', which might also involve applying transformations.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_recipes' or other recipe-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, safety (e.g., read-only vs destructive), permissions, or output storage. The description only lists output components.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but the cryptic style ('A/B', colons, plus signs) limits readability. It is concise but not clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (unexamined), the description fails to explain output format, error handling, or prerequisites. It is incomplete for a tool with sibling tools.
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 adds minimal parameter context. Only 'brand title styles' vaguely relates to 'brand' and 'title_variants', but 'n', 'project_id', and defaults are unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions 'A/B thumbnails' and components like face/sharpness/color scoring, which suggests generating multiple thumbnail variants for testing. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'generate_thumbnail' but remains vague and cryptic.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_thumbnail'. The description implies A/B testing but does not clarify when to invoke this vs. the singular variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'mix' and 'ducking optional', but does not explain whether it modifies the project, what happens to existing audio, or if it is destructive. This is insufficient for a multi-parameter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices essential details for brevity. It front-loads the purpose but omits parameter and behavioral information, making it less useful than a longer but more complete description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema existing, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or relationships between parameters, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies the 'duck' parameter via 'ducking optional'. No explanation of 'style', 'volume', 'bgm_path', or 'project_id' is given, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and constraints.
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 clearly states the tool mixes copyright-safe ambient BGM under vocals, with optional user-provided bgm_path and ducking. The verb 'mix' and resource 'BGM under vocals' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like process_audio which is more general.
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 use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., process_audio, add_graphics). It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Burn' implies a destructive or permanent action, but there is no clarification on reversibility, whether prior transcript is required, or how existing infographics are handled. The timing constraint is noted, but overall behavioral disclosure is insufficient.
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 sentence front-loads the core action and key constraint. It is efficient with no fluff, though it could benefit from a structured layout (e.g., separate parameter details). The minimalism earns a high mark for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description omits essential context: whether transcripts must pre-exist, what 'auto' topic means, expected output shape (despite output schema existence), and integration with other workflow steps. The description covers only the basic intent, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to explain the parameters. 'topic' (with default 'auto') and 'project_id' are not defined. The description's mention of 'keyword/number' cards gives no insight into how the topic parameter influences behavior. Without adding meaning, the description does not compensate for the bare schema.
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 uses the verb 'burn' indicating a rendering operation, specifies the resource as 'keyword/number infographic cards', and adds the constraint 'locked to transcript timing'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'add_graphics' which likely adds generic graphics. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_graphics'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing transcript) or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (no dead silence), but omits other important aspects like whether the operation is destructive, permissions required, or side effects on the project.
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?
The description is a single sentence with 13 words, front-loading the core action. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately concise without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema, the description should at least list the parameters. It only partially addresses room-tone and omits project_id and plan_id, leaving significant gaps despite the output schema existing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the 'room_tone' parameter with 'room-tone fill'. It does not explain 'project_id' or 'plan_id' beyond their names, leaving the agent without needed parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb 'Execute' and resource 'cut plan', and adds detail about room-tone fill. It is clear and distinct from most sibling tools, although it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'plan_cuts'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where another tool would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose important behaviors: what 'last render' means if no render exists, side effects of loudnorm, or any requirements. The description is too terse to provide transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is front-loaded, but the brevity is not justified by the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema details), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of loudnorm, how render_path interacts, or what happens when no render exists. Lacks context to fully understand tool behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only adds the preset options but does not explain loudnorm, project_id, or render_path. Without this, parameters remain opaque, making it hard for an agent to use them correctly.
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 action (Export), the resource (last render or path), and the target preset formats. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_edl or export_multi by focusing on a single render export to specific presets.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for exporting the last render, but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., when multiple exports are needed, use export_multi). Lacks context for choosing among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, or rate limits beyond stating it exports JSON.
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?
One efficient sentence with no wasted words, but could include more context without becoming verbose.
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?
Acceptable given output schema exists, but missing parameter description and usage guidance; adequate for a simple tool.
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?
Single parameter project_id is not described in schema or description; coverage is 0%, and description adds no parameter meaning.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Export' and resource 'edit decision list' in JSON format, listing included content types. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like export_multi or export_render.
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 use this tool versus other export tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions using transcript and energy gaps but fails to specify if the operation is destructive, requires particular permissions, or what the impact on the project is.
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?
The description is a single sentence, very concise, and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what the tool returns or whether it modifies the project in place. Given the complexity of audio editing, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for the parameters 'project_id' or 'aggressiveness'. It does not clarify the format of project_id or the valid range/meaning of aggressiveness, which is critical for correct invocation.
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 tool removes dead air and long fillers using transcript and energy gaps, specifying the verb 'remove' and the resource 'hesitations'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'plan_cuts' and 'apply_cut_plan' which handle different aspects of editing.
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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'plan_cuts' or 'apply_cut_plan'. The description does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only says 'non-destructive editing project' but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or behavior on failure. Lacks important behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence efficiently conveys main action and optional parameter. Well front-loaded, no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and 2 parameters, the description does not cover what happens after creation, default project location, or error handling. Output schema exists but description doesn't reference it.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Describes video_path as 'optionally import a source video path' but does not explain format or constraints. name parameter is not explained at all.
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?
Clearly states verb 'create' and resource 'non-destructive editing project', distinguishing from sibling tools like 'import_video'. The optional import of source video path adds specificity.
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 use this tool vs alternatives like 'import_video' or 'list_projects'. Does not specify prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. Only states a read-like operation ('grab') but doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions (e.g., transcript availability), or whether this modifies state. For a tool generating a thumbnail, more context is needed.
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?
Extremely concise, with action and details front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary context for conciseness, making it too brief for full understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return values, parameter roles, or prerequisites. Incomplete for a new user to confidently invoke.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. Only 'title' is implied via 'title overlay', but 'project_id' is unexplained. The relationship between parameters and functionality is unclear, especially for 'project_id'.
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?
Clearly states the action ('grab') and resource ('thumbnail'), with specific details: mid-frame, title overlay, from transcript. Unambiguous and distinct from siblings like 'generate_thumbnails' (plural).
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 use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use, prerequisites, or whether to prefer other tools like 'generate_thumbnails' for batch operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions matting backends (MediaPipe/SAM) but does not disclose whether operation is destructive, performance implications, or effect on original background. Inadequate for safe invocation.
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?
Single sentence packs key information with minimal verbosity. However, the compressed notation ('space|blur|solid|image') may be ambiguous for some agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (1 required) and no annotations, description insufficient for reliable invocation. Output schema exists but description doesn't hint at return structure. Needs explanation of plate options and backend behavior.
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 coverage is 0%, yet description only clarifies 'plate' options (space|blur|solid|image). Does not explain 'plate_image' (required when plate='image'), 'matte_backend' (auto vs specific), or 'project_id'. Leaves agent guessing.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'cut out' and 'composite over plate' with enumerated options (space|blur|solid|image). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_graphics' or 'apply_recipe', which perform different operations.
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 use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must contain a subject) or specify which plate option should be used in which scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output file path and the processing operations, providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it omits details like whether the tool is destructive, required permissions, or error behavior.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that wastes no words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, missing parameter guidance and usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no schema descriptions, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and does not leverage the output schema to clarify behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the three parameters (strength, project_id, target_lufs). With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter roles.
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 specifies the tool's function: denoising, enhancing vocals, and applying loudnorm normalization, and identifies the output file 'audio/vocals_clean.wav'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mix_bgm or transcribe_and_caption.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apply_recipe or mix_bgm). The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the default is compact and detail=true returns a full manifest, hinting at potential size issues. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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?
The description is very concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and parameter behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is minimal but adequate. It lacks context about what fields are in each mode and does not explain the output, though the output schema covers that. Could be more informative for a complete picture.
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%, requiring the description to compensate. It adds some meaning for the detail parameter (compact vs full) but does not explain the required project_id parameter or provide details about what the compact brief or full manifest contains.
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 specifies 'Project info' as the resource and explains the two modes (compact vs detail). It clearly indicates it retrieves a single project's information, but does not explicitly mention the project_id parameter or differentiate from siblings like list_projects or project_brief.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the detail parameter behavior, leaving the agent with no context for tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors (per-target codec/size/loudness customization, reframe-awareness) but omits details like permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is synchronous. The 'one call' phrasing implies efficiency but lacks safety or mutability cues.
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?
Extremely concise at 10 words, front-loading the key value proposition. No wasted words. However, it sacrifices some necessary detail; a slightly longer description could enhance clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the core differentiator but lacks context on error handling, required scopes, or parameter constraints (e.g., valid target strings). It is adequate for simple use but insufficient for complex scenarios.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints at 'targets' via 'per target'. Parameters hw, targets, and project_id are not explained. The agent must infer types and defaults from the schema alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 tool's function: exporting multiple platform variants in one call. It uses specific verbs and nouns ('export', 'platform variants', 'codec/size/loudness') and distinguishes from siblings like export_edl or export_render by highlighting its batch nature.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies it's for generating all platform variants simultaneously, but does not mention alternatives or contexts where other export tools would be preferred. The agent receives little direction on selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the core actions (ASR, captioning, burning) and style options, but omits important details like whether the transcription modifies the project, if the burn overwrites existing renders, or any side effects. It partially covers transparency but has gaps.
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?
The description is a single well-formatted sentence that fronts the key actions and options. It could be restructured for clarity (e.g., bullet points for parameters), but it is efficient and free of redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage) and presence of an output schema (but not described), the description is insufficient. It fails to mention prerequisites, return values, or how the tool integrates into a workflow, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'burn' (optional) and 'style' (examples: brand, karaoke, minimal), but does not clarify parameters like 'language', 'model_size', or 'fallback_transcript', leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.
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 tool performs ASR to produce a word timeline and ASS captions, and optionally burns them into a new render with style options. It effectively communicates the core functionality and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_graphics or process_audio.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or competing tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It implies read-only behavior by stating 'report', but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or state requirements like permissions.
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?
Single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words.
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?
Description is adequate for a simple reporting tool with an output schema. It mentions specific backends and paths, providing enough context for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. Description adds no parameter info, but schema already handles it. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it reports installed backends and readiness for education vs GPU paths, specifying backends like Whisper, SAM, etc. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_backend_info', whose purpose might overlap.
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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_backend_info'. The description does not mention scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the bake_orientation behavior but omits side effects like overwrites, permissions, or error conditions.
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 with no wasted words; purpose is front-loaded and parameter explanation is immediately after.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the tool has 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage. The description covers only one parameter and lacks context on formats, size limits, or prerequisites, leaving many gaps.
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 0% so the description must compensate. It explains bake_orientation in detail but leaves project_id and video_path undocumented (e.g., format, source location).
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 'import (copy)' and the resource 'a video into the project source folder', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_graphics or process_audio.
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 for copying videos but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'list all projects', missing details on scope (e.g., all accessible projects?), pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.
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?
Single concise sentence with clear verb, resource, and output fields. No redundant information.
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?
With an output schema present, description need not detail return values. It specifies 'status and source paths', which covers key output fields. Adequate for a parameterless list tool.
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?
No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Description adds no parameter info, but baseline is 3 as per guidelines for high 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?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'all projects in the workspace', specifying output includes 'status and source paths'. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_project (single project) and create_project, as it is a list operation.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project (for a single project) or other listing tools. Usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the pipeline stages and toggles, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether the original file is modified, performance implications, or error behavior). This is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the core pipeline, the second lists toggles and options. Every sentence adds value.
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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, multi-stage pipeline), the description is brief. It covers the pipeline and some parameter options, but lacks information on prerequisites, error handling, or output details (though output schema exists, reducing need for return value explanation). Additional context would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents enum values for bg_mode and preset, and toggles for several boolean parameters, covering about 50% of parameters (7 of 14). However, it omits important parameters like 'strength', 'bgm_volume', and 'aggressiveness', leaving gaps.
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?
Description clearly states 'ONE-SHOT creator polish' with a detailed pipeline (orient → denoise → BGM → optional cut/BG/captions/cards → export). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mix_bgm and smart_cut_hesitations by indicating it combines multiple stages into a single automation.
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 this tool is for a complete polish workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. individual stage tools (e.g., mix_bgm, process_audio). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. It only states it returns a summary, which is minimal for behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and key usage guidance without any filler.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description does not elaborate on the return format or the semantics of 'status, paths, next steps'. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.
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 does not explain the parameters ('project_id' or 'detail' boolean). The agent cannot know what 'detail' controls or how to use it effectively.
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 it is a 'compact project summary' that includes 'status, paths, next steps', and explicitly prefers it over 'get_project', distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The directive 'Prefer over get_project' gives explicit usage guidance, telling the agent to choose this tool over its sibling for project summaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what information is reported (backend, flags, device, harness) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but lacks extra context.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters and a declared output schema (not shown but referenced), the description is complete enough. It tells what the tool does and what it returns, and the output schema can detail the structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by specifying what the tool reports, which is helpful for understanding the output.
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 tool reports the active SAM backend, multiplex flags, device, and harness. This is a specific verb (report) and resource (SAM backend info), and it distinguishes from siblings which are mostly mutation or other task tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The use case is implied as a read-only info tool, but no when-not or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 routing behavior, the dry_run mode, and the requirement of video_path for execution. Missing details on permissions or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are clear.
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?
The description is concise with two lines and examples. It front-loads the core action. While compact, it could use bullet points for clarity, but it avoids unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers the main functionality and modes adequately. With an output schema present, return values are not required. Missing parameter details for preset, bg_mode, and project_name reduce completeness slightly.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'intent' with examples, 'dry_run' mode, and 'video_path' requirement. However, 'preset', 'bg_mode', and 'project_name' lack any explanation, leaving half of the 6 parameters undocumented.
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 'Route' and the resource 'free-text intent', listing specific pipelines (polish, recipe, education, VFX). Examples illustrate the intent format, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools.
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 provides examples and explains the dry_run mode for planning versus execution. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'apply_recipe' or 'plan_cuts', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool lists recipes but omits details like pagination, ordering, or completeness. For a simple list, this is minimally adequate.
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?
A single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. Every part is meaningful.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description sufficiently conveys purpose. It doesn't detail the output format, but the output schema likely covers that. The reference to 'apply_recipe' provides necessary context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'named production recipes', and explicitly ties it to 'apply_recipe', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'apply_recipe' itself.
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 use before 'apply_recipe' by stating recipes are 'available to apply_recipe'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the tool's function is self-explanatory in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly lists the expected output values (talking_head, education, vfx, admin, all), which informs the agent of the possible return values. However, it does not mention that it is a read-only operation or any potential access constraints.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence of 11 words, conveying the purpose and output values without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and expected output by listing the packs. It is complete for this simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 'List' and the resource 'agent tool packs', and enumerates specific packs including 'talking_head (default)', 'education', 'vfx', 'admin', 'all'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_tool_pack' which modifies the pack.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'set_tool_pack'. However, the intended use is implied by the name and description: to see available packs before setting one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses key behaviors: removes out-of-pack tools, requires restart for expansion, and that removed tools cannot be re-registered. Users understand side effects.
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, first states main action, second adds essential caveats. No redundant information, highly efficient.
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?
Covers main action and behavioral nuances adequately for a simple 1-param tool. Lacks mention of return value/output schema content, but output schema exists externally.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter 'pack' has 0% schema coverage, but description adds meaning by giving example value 'all' and explaining that pack decides which tools are active. Could list valid pack names for completeness.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'switch' and resource 'tool pack', clearly states it removes out-of-pack tools. Distinguishes from sibling 'list_tool_packs' which only lists packs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (switch active pack) and includes critical warnings: expansion requires restart, removed tools cannot be re-registered mid-session. Provides context for limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![VidMcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhirajlochib/VidMcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhirajlochib/VidMcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![VidMcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhirajlochib/VidMcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dhirajlochib/VidMcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dhirajlochib/VidMcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server