Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
filmcraft-edit

filmcraft-edit

by kanishk-gangwar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ffmpeg_run

Execute FFmpeg with custom raw arguments to process video or audio files for editing, conversion, and rendering tasks.

Instructions

Run ffmpeg with raw arguments (-y and -hide_banner are added). Requires ffmpeg.

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": {
      "args": "<args>"
    },
    "name": "ffmpeg_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: -y and -hide_banner are injected, which means existing output files are overwritten without prompting. However, it says nothing about how stdout/stderr or exit status is surfaced back to the agent, nor about timeouts, which matters for a tool that executes arbitrary binary arguments.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the flag-injection detail up front where it affects the agent's arguments.

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 one-parameter tool this is close, but with no output schema the description should state what is returned (stdout, stderr, exit code) and how failures appear. The sibling set contains two adjacent alternatives (ffmpeg_convert, run_command) that remain unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'args' parameter is documented only as an array of strings. The description calls it 'raw arguments' and notes two flags are appended, which hints at argv-style passing, but it does not clarify ordering, escaping, or that args are passed verbatim, so an agent must guess the exact format.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ("Run ffmpeg with raw arguments") that tells an agent this forwards arbitrary ffmpeg CLI arguments. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ffmpeg_convert or run_command, though 'raw arguments' weakly implies a general-purpose escape hatch.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance: nothing says when to prefer ffmpeg_convert or run_command over this, nor what argument forms are acceptable. The only usage information is the prerequisite 'Requires ffmpeg' and the implicit-flag note.

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