Merge multiple MP4 video clips into one unified video, optionally adding an audio track. Provide clip file paths and an output path to combine them using ffmpeg.
Stitch multiple MP4 video clip files together into a single unified video with optional audio track using ffmpeg.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audio_path | No | ||
| clip_paths | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.75.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It communicates that the tool invokes ffmpeg and produces a stitched video, which is useful, but it does not disclose critical traits such as whether clips must share codecs/resolutions, whether an existing audio track is replaced, whether output files are overwritten, or whether ffmpeg must be installed on the host machine.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It identifies the action, inputs, output, an optional behavior, and the underlying technology without wasting space.
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?
The tool is simple with only three parameters and has an output schema, which reduces the burden on the description. Still, important operational context is missing: ffmpeg availability, clip compatibility requirements, overwrite behavior, and any differentiation from the sibling stitching tool.
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 carry parameter meaning. It supplies basic semantic mapping: 'clip files' corresponds to clip_paths, 'single unified video' corresponds to output_path, and 'optional audio track' corresponds to audio_path. Beyond that mapping, it adds no constraints, formats, ordering behavior, or path rules, so it only partially compensates for the schema's silence.
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 names a specific verb ('Stitch'), a specific resource (multiple MP4 video clip files), and the result (a single unified video with optional audio). It clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'yenflow_stitch_video', which appears to have an overlapping purpose, so it loses the top score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially the similarly named yenflow_stitch_video. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions such as local vs cloud processing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.