Cutible MCP Server

ingest_asset

Ingest media files to detect scenes, transcribe audio, analyze content, and index them for search.

Instructions

Ingest a media file: detect scenes, transcribe, analyze, index.

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": {
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>",
      "uri": "<uri>"
    },
    "name": "ingest_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uri`	Yes
`asset_id`	Yes
`index_dir`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a sequence of operations (detect scenes, transcribe, analyze, index), but it does not explain side effects, whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires an opened project, or what state changes occur in the asset database.

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 one tight sentence with the main verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a concise list of processing steps. It is efficient and scannable, though it omits contextual details that would not cost much extra space.

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 multi-stage ingestion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether ingestion is synchronous, how long it may run, what it returns, whether it mutates the project, or how the three parameters interact.

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% and the description does not mention uri, asset_id, or index_dir. While 'media file' hints at uri and the verb 'index' hints at index_dir, the mapping between parameters and their roles is left mostly to inference.

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 names a specific verb ('Ingest') and resource ('a media file'), and enumerates processing stages: detect scenes, transcribe, analyze, index. This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish ingest_asset from siblings like add_asset, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_asset, add_track, or import_otio. The description implies a general ingest workflow but provides no context for when it is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when another tool should be chosen.

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