Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-ffmpeg

mcp-ffmpeg

by pauloFroes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Split Audio

split_audio

Split an audio file into chunks of N minutes to handle large files that exceed API size limits. Returns paths to all chunk files.

Instructions

Split an audio file into chunks of N minutes. Returns paths to all chunk files. Useful for processing large files that exceed API size limits.

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": "split_audio"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesAbsolute path to a local audio file
output_dirNoOutput directory (default: system temp dir)
chunk_minutesNoDuration of each chunk in minutes (default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with description stating splitting creates new files. Description adds the use case context but does not elaborate on return format or potential side effects beyond path return.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediate context. No extraneous information.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and a key use case. Could mention default chunk minutes or output directory behavior, but overall adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant semantics beyond the schema. It mentions chunk duration implicitly but does not add detail not already in 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Split an audio file into chunks of N minutes' and the resource 'audio file'. Also distinguishes from sibling tools which perform different actions (check dependencies, extract audio, extract frames, 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?

Explicitly mentions when to use: 'Useful for processing large files that exceed API size limits.' Does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but 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