Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-video-engine

agent-video-engine

by ferdy252
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

revision_list

Read-only

Lists saved edit revisions for a local video project directory, enabling review of prior cuts and change tracking.

Instructions

List saved edit revisions.

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": {
      "projectDir": "<projectDir>"
    },
    "name": "revision_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectDirYesAbsolute path of the local video project directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word "saved", implying persistence, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or scope of the listing. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description contributes very little.

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 short front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason other dimensions are under-served.

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 simple read-only list tool the description is still thin: it does not state that results are scoped to the projectDir, nor anything about ordering or volume. No output schema exists, so the description could have carried more of that burden.

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% for the single projectDir parameter, whose schema description already explains it is the absolute path of a local video project. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("saved edit revisions"), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like revision_compare and revision_restore, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus revision_compare (to diff revisions) or revision_restore (to roll back). The description gives no prerequisites or context beyond the bare purpose.

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