Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-ffmpeg

mcp-ffmpeg

by pauloFroes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Extract Frames

extract_frames
Read-only

Extract frames from a local video file at regular intervals, returning base64 images for immediate analysis.

Instructions

Extract frames/screenshots from a local video file at regular intervals. Returns images as base64 that Claude can see and analyze.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "extract_frames"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNoOutput image format (default: 'jpg')jpg
file_pathYesAbsolute path to a local video file
max_framesNoMaximum number of frames to extract (default: 10)
interval_secondsNoSeconds between each frame capture (default: 30)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that images are returned as base64 and usable by Claude, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output, no wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description explains the return format (base64 images for Claude). It covers input, process, and output, leaving no critical gaps for a read-only tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra parameter meaning, but it implies interval_seconds via 'regular intervals'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'extract' and resource 'frames from a local video file', with output specified as 'base64 that Claude can see'. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like extract_audio or get_media_info.

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 extracting frames at regular intervals, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools. Sibling tools are distinct, so the context is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools