reframe_videoConvert any video to a target aspect ratio (9:16, 1:1, 16:9, etc.) using smart subject tracking. Returns a served URL of the reframed video.
Reframe a video to a different aspect ratio (e.g. 16:9 master -> 9:16 vertical) with smart subject tracking. Paid render; returns the served URL of the reframed video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video | Yes | the source video URL | |
| aspectRatio | Yes | the target aspect ratio |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.161Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "jobId": {
- "description": "the render job id — poll get_job with this id to resume or inspect",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "model": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "the product-facing label of the model that rendered it"
- },
- "raw": {
- "description": "the raw job result payload (e.g. images[] for carousel template ads)"
- },
- "stillRendering": {
- "description": "true when the render is still in progress — keep polling get_job with jobId",
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- "url": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "description": "the served URL of the finished media (absent/null while still rendering)"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that it is a paid render and that it returns a served URL, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core operation and includes only high-value details: example transformation, subject tracking, paid render, and output URL. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a two-parameter tool with a 100% covered schema, the description covers the essential missing context: it is paid, it returns a served URL, and it uses smart tracking. It does not detail pricing mechanics or processing time, but nothing critical prevents a correct call.
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 coverage is 100%: both video and aspectRatio have descriptions, and aspectRatio has an enum of valid values. The description adds only an example ratio rather than new parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('Reframe') and resource ('a video') and gives a concrete before/after aspect ratio example. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like clip_video or edit_video, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies the tool is for aspect-ratio conversion with subject tracking, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as clip_video, edit_video, or resize_ad. No exclusions or routing conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.