Convert local GIFs, WebP, videos, media links, or Bilibili links into a frame grid with metadata. Use it to inspect animated memes, clips, or local assets.
把任意“动的东西”变成模型能看懂的帧网格：本地 GIF/WebP/视频、媒体直链、或 B 站链接。适合识别动图表情包、看短视频、检查本地素材。返回元信息（尺寸/帧数/时长）+ 一张网格图。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | 本地路径、媒体直链（.gif/.webp/.mp4…）或 B 站链接 | |
| frames | No | 抽几帧；动图默认 6，视频默认 9 | |
| strategy | No | 视频取帧策略：overview 均匀覆盖全程（默认）；recent 取最近 N 个变化瞬间（FIFO 队列快照） | |
| tileWidth | No | 每帧宽度（像素），默认 240 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It partially does: it discloses accepted input sources and the return shape (metadata plus one grid image), but it omits network/IO behavior for remote or bilibili inputs, the 12-frame cap, failure modes, and cost/latency implications.
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?
It is short: three compact clauses cover purpose, input sources, use cases, and return value. The phrasing is slightly informal, and it front-loads the core purpose, but the return-value detail at the end could be reordered to come earlier.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description's statement of the return value (dimensions, frame count, and duration, plus a grid image) is essential, and the description supplies it. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has almost everything it needs, though remote fetching and failure handling remain unstated.
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%, so the schema already documents the input, frame count defaults, the strategy enum, and the tile width range. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema says; the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a concrete verb+resource: convert local GIF/WebP/video, media direct links, or bilibili links into a frame grid. It differs implicitly from the siblings bili_video_info and bili_video_watch by covering any media source, not just bilibili, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation stays implicit.
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?
It gives concrete usage scenarios: recognizing animated memes, watching short videos, checking local assets. However, it never says when to prefer bili_video_watch or bili_video_info over this tool, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites (for example, whether bilibili downloads need auth).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.