reframe_videoReframe a video to a new aspect ratio (e.g., 16:9 to 9:16) with smart subject tracking. Returns the 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 declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true). The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: it is a 'Paid render' (cost implication) and it 'returns the served URL of the reframed video' (return value, important since there is no output schema). It stops short of clarifying async/job behavior, which matters given the sibling get_job pattern.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the cost/return note. No filler; every clause carries information.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It is nearly complete, though it omits whether the render is synchronous or requires polling and gives no cost magnitude for the 'Paid render' warning.
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 100% and both parameters (video URL, aspectRatio enum) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces semantics with the 16:9->9:16 example but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (reframe) and resource (video), names the transformation (different aspect ratio) and the mechanism (smart subject tracking), plus a concrete 16:9->9:16 example. This distinguishes it from siblings like resize_ad, edit_video, and upscale_video without needing to open their schemas.
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?
Usage context is implied by the aspect-ratio transformation and the 'Paid render' cost note, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no naming of alternatives such as upscale_video or edit_video. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.