Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Takes for Mac

Takes for Mac

by marvtub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

check_edit

Validate each new edit against its take for sound, picture, sync, cut words, undone fixes, and rules before publishing; Gemini review is optional, otherwise use the frame sheet.

Instructions

Check each new edit before you show it. It compares the edit with its take: sound, picture, sync, cut words, undone fixes, rules with a check. Fix each failure in a new version and check that. pass null: did not run (skip says why). A failure looks wrong: tell the user its say. review: with a Gemini key, Gemini watches the edit with the rules (about 5 cents, cached per version); without one, a frame sheet for you to look at. Follow review.note.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesE.g. 'edits/hook-v4.mp4'.
watchNofalse: skip Gemini's review (default true).
sourceNoOptional take file, when not the keeper.
sessionYesSession as 'Project/folder', an absolute path, or its id (from get_session). An old path still works after a rename or move.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2026.10.15
    • addedInput schema / properties / watch
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "false: skip Gemini's review (default true).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the Gemini review path, its ~5-cent cost, per-version caching, the frame-sheet fallback when no key is present, and the null/'did not run' outcome. The one gap is that annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description never explains why a 'check' is not read-only (frames/versions presumably created).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the prose is dense shorthand ('pass null: did not run (skip says why)', 'tell the user its say') that reads more like notes than structured guidance. Every clause is roughly relevant, but the cryptic phrasing costs clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return semantics; it partially does via 'pass null: did not run' and 'review.note', but the actual failure/pass output shape and the meaning of 'review.note' are left underspecified for a tool whose whole job is reporting check results.

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 the schema already documents file, watch, source, and session. The description only adds marginal context around the 'watch' skip behavior and 'review', so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Check each new edit before you show it,' and enumerates what it validates (sound, picture, sync, cut words, undone fixes, rules). This clearly distinguishes it from rendering/publishing siblings like render_edit or publish_edit, though the heavy jargon slightly muddies the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear timing/context ('before you show it') and a remediation workflow ('Fix each failure in a new version and check that'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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