Skip to main content
Glama

fc_render_frame

Renders a single Program Monitor frame to a PNG at a specified sequence time, with optional scaling and offline-media placeholder handling.

Instructions

Render a single Program Monitor frame to a PNG file at the given sequence time.

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": {
      "seconds": "<seconds>",
      "out": "<out>"
    },
    "name": "fc_render_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outYesOutput PNG file path.
scaleNoRender at a fraction of full frame size.
secondsYesSequence time in seconds to render.
allow_offlineNoAllow offline media to render as placeholder frames.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.24.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a file is written to a path; it does not say whether an existing file is overwritten, what happens if the host app or sequence is unavailable, what the rendered resolution defaults to, or how failures surface.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, output format, and the key parameter are all stated up front. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate about what it produces but thin on the side effects of writing a file and on how the result is reported. The rich schema covers parameters, so the remaining gap is behavioral rather than structural.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including scale bounds and offline-media handling. The description only restates that 'seconds' is a sequence time and the output is PNG, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: render a single Program Monitor frame to a PNG file. That is clearly distinct from siblings like fc_export (sequence export) and fc_probe, but the description never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the wording: use this when you need a still image of one frame at a given time. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over fc_export or fc_probe, and no stated prerequisites such as an active sequence or a connected host.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.