moreel

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Find Moment

find_moment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pinpoint the exact timestamped moment in a processed video that answers a specific question, returning one authoritative piece of verifiable evidence rather than a list of matches.

Instructions

Returns the single best timestamped piece of evidence in a previously-understood video for a specific question — precise, verifiable, and anchored to one moment, unlike search_video which returns every match.

Requires a "video_id" from a prior understand_video or transcribe_video call. Use this when you need one authoritative answer with proof (e.g. "does the creator show pricing anywhere?", "what is he pointing at when he says 'this one'?") rather than a list of every mention. When the best match resolves to a specific visual entity (a pointing gesture, a "this"/"that" reference), the "interaction" field gives the structured target — absent when evidence was too weak to confidently resolve one, never a fabricated guess.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	The specific thing to find — e.g. "pricing", "the revenue slide", "the dashboard".
`video_id`	Yes	A video id previously returned by understand_video or transcribe_video.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	No	The exact evidence — what was said or what was shown.
`found`	Yes	False when nothing in the video matched the query at all.
`query`	Yes
`answer`	No
`source`	No
`frame_id`	No	When present, fetch the evidence frame via GET /media/:frame_id on the HTTP API.
`video_id`	Yes
`timestamp`	No	Seconds from the start of the video where the best evidence occurs.
`confidence`	No
`interaction`	No
`end_timestamp`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the interaction field: it is present only when a visual entity is strongly resolved, absent when evidence is weak, and never fabricated. This goes beyond the annotations and adds trust-indicating transparency.

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?

The description is a compact set of four sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose/differentiation, dependency, usage guidance/example, and interaction field reliability. No filler or redundancy. The most essential info is front-loaded in the opening sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has only two parameters, a 100% schema-described input schema, and an output schema to describe return values. The description sufficiently explains prerequisites, intended use cases, and edge-case behavior (weak evidence), making it equally complete. No critical operational element needing explanation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the query parameter's semantic role (specific things to find, with examples like 'pricing') and stating that video_id must come from prior understand_video or transcribe_video output. This contextual relationship is not in the schema and helps agents compose calls correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('single best timestamped piece of evidence'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_video ('unlike search_video which returns every match'). An agent can clearly distinguish this tool from its siblings without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states a prerequisite (requires a video_id from prior understand_video or transcribe_video), provides usage examples, and gives a clear selection criterion: 'use this when you need one authoritative answer with proof rather than a list of every mention'. The 'when not to use' is implied by the contrast with search_video, giving an exclusionary signal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server