Video & Audio Editing MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools have overlapping or ambiguous purposes that could cause confusion. For example, convert_audio_format and convert_audio_properties both handle audio format conversion, with the latter being a superset of the former. Similarly, there are multiple tools for setting individual audio/video properties (e.g., set_audio_bitrate, set_audio_sample_rate) that overlap with the more comprehensive convert_audio_properties and convert_video_properties tools. While descriptions help clarify, the boundaries between these tools are unclear, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right one without deep understanding of the domain.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with all tools using snake_case (e.g., add_basic_transitions, convert_audio_format). The verbs are generally descriptive and appropriate for the actions (add, convert, set, extract, etc.). There are minor deviations like health_check (which is more of a utility) and remove_silence (which could be phrased as trim_silence), but overall the pattern is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 27 tools, the count feels excessive for a video and audio editing server. Many tools are highly specialized (e.g., separate tools for setting individual audio properties like bitrate, sample rate, and channels) that could be consolidated into more general tools. This large number increases cognitive load and makes the toolset feel bloated, especially when compared to typical well-scoped servers that have 3-15 tools.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers a wide range of video and audio editing operations, including transitions, overlays, subtitles, concatenation, format conversion, property adjustments, and trimming. There are no major gaps in core functionalities like editing, conversion, or enhancement. However, some advanced editing features (e.g., color correction, audio mixing, special effects) are missing, but the existing tools support most common workflows without dead ends.
Average 3.5/5 across 27 of 27 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'using padding or cropping' which gives some behavioral context about the transformation method, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether the operation is destructive (modifies original vs creates new file), what happens with invalid aspect ratios, performance characteristics, or error conditions. The return value description is minimal ('A status message indicating success or failure').
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 description is brief (3 sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence is useful, but 'Args listed in PRD' wastes space without adding value for an AI agent. The return value sentence is minimal but could be more informative. While concise, it's not optimally front-loaded with the most critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a video transformation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, error handling, or provide examples. The mention of padding/cropping gives some context, but doesn't compensate for the missing structured information. The return value description is too vague to be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description explicitly states 'Args listed in PRD' rather than explaining parameters. This provides zero semantic information about the 5 parameters beyond what their names suggest. The description doesn't explain what target_aspect_ratio format should be, what resize_mode options exist, or what padding_color values are valid.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Changes the aspect ratio of a video, using padding or cropping.' This specifies both the action (change aspect ratio) and the resource (video), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_video_resolution or trim_video. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., convert_video_properties might also affect aspect ratio).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when padding vs cropping is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like set_video_resolution. The only contextual hint is 'using padding or cropping' which describes implementation rather than usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Inserts B-roll clips' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe permissions, side effects, error handling, or output behavior. For a video editing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the second sentence about 'Args listed in previous messages' is confusing and adds no value in this context. The description could be more efficiently structured without this extraneous reference.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a video editing tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what B-roll clips are, how they're inserted, what the output contains, or any constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'Args listed in previous messages' but doesn't explain what the three parameters mean or how they're used. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter purposes and formats.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Inserts') and resource ('B-roll clips into a main video as overlays'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_image_overlay' or 'add_text_overlay' that also add overlays, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where B-roll insertion is appropriate compared to other overlay types, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool converts properties and returns a status message, but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites output file?), performance implications (CPU-intensive?), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a complex 11-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 description is brief (three sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence is clear, but the second ('Args listed in PRD.') adds no value for the agent, and the third only partially describes output. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but wastes space on unactionable references rather than providing concise, useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., are all optional except the three required?), what happens if properties conflict, or the format of the status message return. For a video conversion tool with many configuration options, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It lists example properties (resolution, codecs, bitrates, frame rate) which map to some of the 11 parameters, but doesn't explain semantics for all parameters (e.g., input_video_path format, target_format options, audio_channels meaning). The reference to 'Args listed in PRD' is unhelpful to the agent. With low coverage and incomplete parameter explanation, the description adds limited value.
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?
The description clearly states the tool converts video file format and properties like resolution, codecs, bitrates, and frame rate. It specifies the verb 'converts' and resource 'video file format and properties', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_video_format' or property-specific setters, which slightly reduces clarity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for specific video/audio property adjustments (e.g., set_video_bitrate, set_video_codec) and format conversion (convert_video_format), the agent lacks context on whether this is a comprehensive conversion tool or when to choose it over more targeted options. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool extracts and saves audio, implying a mutation (creates a new file), but lacks details on permissions, file overwriting behavior, error handling, or performance aspects like processing time. The mention of a status message in returns hints at outcome reporting, but it's vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant sentences. However, the Args/Returns formatting might be slightly verbose for a simple tool, but it adds 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?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description does a decent job explaining inputs and the return as a status message. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., file creation/overwrite), error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all 3 parameters: 'video_path' as input file, 'output_audio_path' as save location, and 'audio_codec' with examples and default. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's basic titles, though it could specify path formats or codec constraints more.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extracts audio from a video file and saves it.' This specifies the action (extracts), resource (audio from video), and outcome (saves). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'convert_audio_format' or 'remove_silence', which also process audio, though the extraction focus is distinct.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'convert_audio_format' (which might handle existing audio files) or other audio-related siblings. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid video file, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Sets') and return type ('status message'), but lacks critical details like whether it overwrites files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has performance implications. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly verbose compared to integrating this into a single paragraph.
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?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters and return type. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on file handling, error conditions, and behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for safe agent use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'input_audio_path' as source, 'output_audio_path' as destination, and 'bitrate' with example values. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could include format details like accepted bitrate units.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('bitrate for an audio file'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_audio_sample_rate' or 'convert_audio_properties', which reduces it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'set_audio_sample_rate' or 'convert_audio_properties' that might handle related audio modifications, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally describes behavior. It mentions what the tool does (adds fade transitions) and the return value (status message), but lacks critical details like whether it modifies the original file, requires specific video formats, has performance implications, or handles errors beyond success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and front-loaded core functionality. Each sentence adds value, though the transition type note could be slightly more concise. Overall efficient for a 4-parameter tool.
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 video processing tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics but lacks completeness. It covers what the tool does and parameter meanings, but misses behavioral details (e.g., file handling, format requirements, error conditions) that would help an agent use it correctly in complex scenarios.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful context for all 4 parameters: it explains what 'transition_type' options mean with helpful notes about equivalents, clarifies that 'duration_seconds' controls fade length, and identifies input/output paths. This compensates well for the schema gap, though some parameter details (like path formats) remain unspecified.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Adds basic fade transitions') and target resource ('to the beginning or end of a video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_text_overlay' or 'change_aspect_ratio' which perform different video modifications.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description mentions 'beginning or end of a video', it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other transition methods or when not to use it, leaving the agent without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'attempting to copy the video stream' which suggests partial behavioral context about preservation, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a destructive operation, what happens if the operation fails, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose statement followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'attempting to copy the video stream' phrase could be more precise. The description is appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic parameter semantics and purpose but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'attempting to copy the video stream' means operationally, what happens on failure, or what the status message contains. Given the complexity of video processing and zero annotation coverage, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for all 3 parameters: 'input_video_path: Path to the source video file', 'output_video_path: Path to save the video with the new audio channel layout', and 'audio_channels: Number of audio channels (1 for mono, 2 for stereo)'. The audio_channels explanation with examples (1 for mono, 2 for stereo) adds significant value beyond what the bare schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Sets the number of audio channels', 'attempting to copy the video stream') and identifies the resource ('a video's audio track'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_audio_channels' by specifying it operates on video audio tracks rather than standalone audio files.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_audio_channels' or 'convert_audio_properties'. The description mentions 'attempting to copy the video stream' which hints at preservation behavior but doesn't provide clear usage context or prerequisites for successful operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'attempting to copy the video stream', which hints at partial mutation behavior, but fails to specify critical details like whether the operation is destructive to the original file, what permissions are needed, error handling, or performance implications. For a tool that modifies media files, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using minimal sentences that directly convey purpose and parameters. It avoids redundancy, though the 'attempting to copy the video stream' phrase could be more precise, and the return value description is somewhat vague.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a fair job by covering purpose and parameters. However, for a tool that performs media transformation, it lacks details on supported formats, error conditions, side effects (e.g., file overwriting), and the structure of the return message, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly lists and explains all three parameters ('input_video_path', 'output_video_path', 'audio_codec') with examples for 'audio_codec' (e.g., 'aac', 'mp3'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid codec formats or path requirements, slightly limiting completeness.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Sets the audio codec of a video's audio track') and resource ('video's audio track'), with the additional detail 'attempting to copy the video stream' that distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_audio_bitrate' or 'convert_video_format'. It precisely defines what the tool does beyond just restating the name.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_video_audio_track_bitrate' or 'convert_audio_format'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file formats supported), exclusions, or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information without comparative usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'attempting to copy the video stream' which hints at partial failure modes, but doesn't cover permissions needed, file format limitations, whether original files are modified, error handling, or performance characteristics. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. The description is appropriately sized with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, though the 'attempting to copy' clause could be more precisely worded.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about parameters and purpose but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'success or failure' means in practice, nor does it address file system implications or compatibility constraints that would help an agent use it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear meaning for all three parameters: 'input_video_path' as source file path, 'output_video_path' as destination path, and 'audio_sample_rate' as target rate in Hz with examples (44100, 48000). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Sets the audio sample rate of a video's audio track') and resource ('video's audio track'), with the additional detail 'attempting to copy the video stream' that distinguishes it from other audio/video processing tools. It precisely communicates what the tool does beyond just the name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_audio_sample_rate' or other audio/video processing siblings. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to similar tools in the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions a status message return but doesn't specify if the tool is destructive (e.g., overwrites output files), has performance implications, or requires specific permissions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. It's appropriately sized, though the parameter explanations are slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, making it efficient overall.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a fair job by detailing parameters and return type. However, for a video processing tool with potential side effects, it lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like error handling or format constraints.
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?
The description adds significant value beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'video_path: The path to the input video file') and provides format hints for time values ('HH:MM:SS or seconds'), compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Trims a video') and the resource ('a video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'change_video_speed' or 'concatenate_videos' by focusing on time-based trimming. It's precise and not a tautology of the tool name.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, format compatibility) or compare it to siblings like 'remove_silence' for similar time-based operations, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states the tool changes speed and returns a status message, but doesn't disclose whether it's destructive (modifies files), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what specific failure modes might occur. The mention of audio being affected is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, and subsequent lines document parameters and return value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' label more naturally, but overall it's efficient.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and states the return type, but misses behavioral context like file system impacts, error handling, or format limitations. For a video processing tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter: 'video_path' as input file path, 'output_video_path' as save location, and 'speed_factor' with examples (2.0 for 2x, 0.5 for half) and constraint (must be positive). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('playback speed of a video'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on speed adjustment rather than format conversion, overlays, trimming, or other video editing functions. It explicitly mentions audio is also affected, which adds specificity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trim_video' for time-based adjustments or 'set_video_frame_rate' for frame rate changes. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions) or exclusions (e.g., unsupported formats). Usage is implied only by the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'success or failure' status but doesn't cover permissions, file overwriting, supported input formats, performance, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a file conversion tool.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers basics but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like supported formats, file system interactions, or error details. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity of audio conversion.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining all 3 parameters with examples (e.g., 'mp3', 'wav', 'aac' for target_format). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could specify path formats or format constraints more explicitly.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Converts an audio file') and resource ('to the specified target format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'convert_audio_properties' or 'extract_audio_from_video' which handle different audio operations.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'convert_audio_properties' or 'convert_video_format' is provided. The description only states what it does without context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool does and parameters, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether the operation is destructive to the original file, what permissions are needed, potential side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The return statement is minimal ('status message') without detailing success/failure formats.
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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides well-organized parameter explanations with examples, and ends with return information. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well and states the basic purpose, but lacks behavioral context, error handling details, and comprehensive usage guidance. For a tool that modifies media files, more information about file format support, processing limitations, or output quality would be helpful.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics that fully compensate. Each parameter is clearly explained with its purpose and includes helpful examples (e.g., '-30.0' for silence_threshold_db, '500' for min_silence_duration_ms). The description adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema titles provide.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('silent segments from an audio or video file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'trim_video' or 'convert_audio_format' by focusing specifically on silence removal rather than general editing or format conversion.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear what the tool does, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison to similar tools like 'trim_video' which might also affect audio segments. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool modifies audio files (implied by 'Sets'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., file overwriting), error handling, or performance aspects like rate limits. The return statement is generic, offering minimal insight into actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the return statement could be more specific, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral and usage context. It covers the basic operation but misses details like file format support, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by clearly explaining all three parameters: 'input_audio_path' as the source file, 'output_audio_path' as the destination, and 'sample_rate' with units and examples (e.g., 44100 Hz). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('sample rate for an audio file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_audio_bitrate' or 'set_audio_channels'. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'convert_audio_properties' or 'set_audio_bitrate', nor does it specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation and return format. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or performance characteristics (e.g., processing time, file size changes). The phrase 'attempting to copy' hints at potential failure but doesn't elaborate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose statement, Args section, and Returns section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'attempting to copy' phrase could be more precise. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters adequately but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like error conditions, audio handling guarantees, or output specifics. It's minimally viable but leaves gaps for safe agent invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for all three parameters, including examples for video_bitrate ('e.g., '1M', '2500k''), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify path formats or constraints.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Sets the video bitrate of a video') and resource ('a video'), with the additional detail 'attempting to copy the audio stream' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_video_audio_track_bitrate. It precisely communicates what the tool does beyond just the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for video bitrate adjustment with audio preservation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_video_audio_track_bitrate or convert_video_properties. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a read-only operation that returns a status, but lacks details like response format, potential errors, or rate limits. It's adequate for a simple health check but could be more informative.
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 single, efficient sentence: 'Returns a simple health status to confirm the server is running.' It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and why, though it could benefit from mentioning the return value format. For a simple health check, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a simple health status to confirm the server is running.' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('health status'), and intent ('to confirm the server is running'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, which are all video/audio processing tools, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('to confirm the server is running'), suggesting it should be used for checking server availability. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in a server with many processing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies audio files (implied mutation) and describes input/output paths, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The return value description is minimal ('status message indicating success or failure').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Each sentence earns its place, though the return value description could be slightly more informative. The formatting with clear section headers enhances readability.
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?
Given a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It explains parameters well and states the basic purpose, but lacks details about file format compatibility, error handling, side effects, or what the status message contains. For a tool that modifies files, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: it explains what each path parameter represents (source vs. destination), clarifies the meaning of 'channels' with specific values (1 for mono, 2 for stereo), and documents the return value. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('number of channels for an audio file'), including the specific channel options (1 for mono, 2 for stereo). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_audio_bitrate' or 'set_audio_sample_rate' by focusing specifically on channel configuration rather than other audio properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., '1 for mono, 2 for stereo'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_video_audio_track_channels' or other audio manipulation tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'attempting to copy the video stream' which hints at preservation behavior, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what happens if the bitrate change fails, performance characteristics, or file format limitations. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with purpose statement, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, though the 'attempting to copy the video stream' phrase could be more precise. It's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool without unnecessary elaboration.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks sufficient behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'success or failure' entails, error conditions, or the preservation guarantee for the video stream. Given the complexity of video processing, more detail about limitations and outcomes would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage (titles only provide parameter names), the description fully compensates by clearly explaining all three parameters: input_video_path ('Path to the source video file'), output_video_path ('Path to save the video with the new audio bitrate'), and audio_bitrate ('Target audio bitrate' with example format '128k', '192k'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Sets the audio bitrate of a video's audio track') and resource ('video's audio track'), with the additional detail 'attempting to copy the video stream' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_audio_bitrate' which likely processes audio files directly. This provides precise differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when modifying audio bitrate while preserving video, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_audio_bitrate' or 'convert_video_properties'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's mutation behavior ('Sets', 'save') and the audio preservation attempt, but lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive to the original file, processing time expectations, error conditions, or what specific 'success or failure' messages might look like.
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 efficiently structured with purpose statement upfront followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states core functionality, the Args section explains all parameters, and the Returns section clarifies output. No wasted words.
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?
Given a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters adequately but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what happens to the original file, what formats are supported, error handling details, or performance characteristics that would help an agent use this tool effectively in complex workflows.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all three parameters. It successfully provides clear semantics for each: 'input_video_path' as source file path, 'output_video_path' as destination path, and 'video_codec' with helpful examples ('libx264', 'libx265', 'vp9'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Sets the video codec', 'attempting to copy the audio stream') and identifies the resource ('a video'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'convert_video_format' or 'set_video_audio_track_codec' by focusing specifically on video codec changes while preserving audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'attempting to copy the audio stream' and the parameter descriptions, suggesting this is for re-encoding video while keeping audio intact. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'convert_video_format' or 'set_video_audio_track_codec', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool attempts to copy the audio stream, which is a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects like file overwriting, which are important for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence is purposeful. However, the 'attempting to copy the audio stream' clause could be integrated more smoothly, slightly affecting flow.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well and hints at behavior, but lacks details on return values beyond a generic status message, leaving gaps in understanding outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains all three parameters with clear examples (e.g., '1920x1080', '1280x720', or '720' for height) and specifies their roles, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('resolution of a video'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning audio stream copying, which is unique among video processing tools like 'set_video_bitrate' or 'set_video_frame_rate'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'change_aspect_ratio' or 'set_video_codec', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('Adds', 'save') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific file permissions, handles errors, or has performance considerations. It mentions the return is a 'status message' but gives no details on format or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by organized parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter list is lengthy (9 items), which is necessary given the complexity. It could be slightly more concise by combining some 'If None' explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering input semantics and basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like file handling, error responses, or performance limits, which would be needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 9 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, format options (e.g., position enums, time formats, opacity range), and default behaviors (e.g., 'If None' cases), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Adds an image overlay') and resource ('to a video'), with explicit examples of overlay types ('watermark/logo'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_text_overlay' by specifying image-based overlays, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_text_overlay' or 'add_b_roll', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected over other video editing tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the core behavior (burning subtitles onto video) and mentions optional styling, but lacks details about permissions, file format requirements, error conditions, or performance characteristics like processing time.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some details like the extensive font_style examples could be more concise, but overall it's efficiently organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about inputs and the basic return value. It covers the main functionality well but could benefit from more behavioral context about error handling or performance expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed documentation for all parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, provides formatting examples for the complex font_style dictionary, and documents default behavior when font_style is None.
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 starts with a specific verb ('Burns subtitles') and resource ('from an SRT file onto a video'), clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_text_overlay' by specifying it works with SRT subtitle files rather than general text overlays.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'add_text_overlay' available, there's no indication of when subtitle burning is preferred over text overlay, nor any prerequisites or constraints mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior ('attempting to copy codecs first') and output ('status message indicating success or failure'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to the original file. This is adequate but has gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, Args section, and Returns section, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'attempting to copy codecs first' detail could be more integrated into the flow.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks behavioral details like side effects, error cases, or performance considerations, which are important for a video conversion operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains all three parameters: input_video_path ('Path to the source video file'), output_video_path ('Path to save the converted video file'), and target_format ('Desired output video format' with examples). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('converts', 'attempting to copy codecs') and resources ('video file', 'target format'), distinguishing it from siblings like convert_audio_format or convert_video_properties by focusing on format conversion rather than property changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for video format conversion but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_video_properties or set_video_codec. It mentions 'attempting to copy codecs first', which hints at a specific approach, but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'converts' which implies mutation/write operations, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has performance/rate limits. The return value is mentioned but lacks detail on success/failure conditions.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns with bullet-like clarity. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.
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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context. It explains what the tool does and parameters thoroughly, but doesn't cover important aspects like file handling behavior, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would be needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 6 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, gives examples (e.g., 'mp3', '128k', 44100), indicates optionality, and clarifies numeric meanings (e.g., '1 for mono, 2 for stereo'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool converts audio file format and properties like bitrate, sample rate, and channels. It uses specific verbs ('converts') and resources ('audio file'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'convert_audio_format' (which likely only changes format) and individual property setters like 'set_audio_bitrate'.
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?
The description implies usage for comprehensive audio conversion with multiple properties, suggesting it's appropriate when format AND specific audio properties need adjustment. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'convert_audio_format' for format-only changes or individual property setters for single adjustments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool modifies video frame rate, creates a new output file, and attempts to copy the audio stream (implying potential failure cases). However, it doesn't mention important details like whether the operation is destructive to the original file, what formats are supported, error conditions, or performance characteristics.
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 well-structured and efficiently organized: a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and its parameters. However, it lacks important context about behavioral details (error handling, supported formats, performance), and the return value description ('status message') is vague without specifying what success/failure messages look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for all three parameters: 'input_video_path' as source file path, 'output_video_path' as destination for the modified video, and 'frame_rate' as target frame rate with examples (24, 30, 60). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Sets'), resource ('frame rate of a video'), and scope ('attempting to copy the audio stream'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'change_video_speed' or 'set_video_bitrate' by focusing specifically on frame rate adjustment with audio preservation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the parameter descriptions and the mention of audio stream copying, suggesting it's for frame rate conversion while preserving audio. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'change_video_speed' (which might affect audio pitch) or other video processing tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies a video file (implied by 'adds' and output path), describes the return value ('status message indicating success or failure'), and details parameter defaults and optional keys. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more front-loaded; the first sentence states the purpose, but the detailed parameter info follows immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains the tool's purpose, parameters in detail, and return value. However, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like error conditions or performance implications, which would be helpful for a video processing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides comprehensive details for all 3 parameters, including required/optional keys for 'text_elements', data types, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'HH:MM:SS, or seconds'). This adds significant meaning beyond the minimal schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('adds') and resource ('text overlays to a video'), including scope ('at specified times and positions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_image_overlay' and 'add_subtitles' by specifying text overlays rather than images or subtitles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the parameter details (e.g., specifying times and positions for text overlays), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_image_overlay' or 'add_subtitles'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool creates a new output file (implying mutation), supports optional transitions with specific conditions (exactly two videos), and returns a status message. However, it lacks details on error handling, file format compatibility, or performance considerations.
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 description is appropriately sized but not optimally structured. The initial sentences are front-loaded with core functionality, but the detailed transition effect list (25+ options) is verbose and could be summarized. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clear but add bulk, reducing overall efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., file permissions, supported video formats) and error scenarios, which are important for a mutation tool with file operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing all parameters. It explains 'video_paths' as a list of input files, 'output_video_path' as the save location, 'transition_effect' with an extensive enum list and condition (applied only for two videos), and 'transition_duration' as seconds with dependencies, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('concatenates') and resource ('multiple video files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_basic_transitions' or 'trim_video' by focusing on combining videos rather than modifying or extracting from them.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., 'Supports optional xfade transition when concatenating exactly two videos'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'add_basic_transitions' for transitions without concatenation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![video-audio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/misbahsy/video-audio-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/misbahsy/video-audio-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![video-audio-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/misbahsy/video-audio-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/misbahsy/video-audio-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/misbahsy/video-audio-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server