analyze_videoExtract keyframes from video files and generate text descriptions via a vision model, letting text-only agents understand video content.
Analyze a video file (mp4, webm, mov, avi, mkv) by extracting keyframes and describing the content. Requires ffmpeg installed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the video file | |
| prompt | No | Optional custom prompt for the analysis |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ffmpeg dependency and the keyframe-extraction approach, but it does not mention output format, side effects, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds formats and dependencies efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a straightforward tool, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left to infer what the tool returns. A brief note on the output would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the path and prompt parameters. The description adds format and dependency context but no additional parameter-specific meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action (analyze), the resource (video files), the accepted formats, and the method (extracting keyframes and describing content). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling analyze_image by scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the supported video formats and the ffmpeg prerequisite, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over analyze_image or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.