Convert a specific segment of a video into a looping animated GIF. Specify start time, duration, and output width to create a custom GIF from any local video.
Create a looping animated GIF from a segment of a video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | Start timestamp. Default "0". | |
| width | No | Output width in pixels. Default 480. | |
| duration | No | Duration in seconds. Default 3, max 30. | |
| video_path | Yes | Local path to the video |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. Although 'Create' implies a side effect (a new file), the description does not state whether the source video is left untouched, where the output is saved, what format the return value takes, or any permissions required. This minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and clearly leads with the verb and core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool definition and earns its place without filler.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to convey what the tool returns (e.g., a file path, a success message, or binary data) or any other operational context such as output naming or potential failure modes. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall description leaves a 4-parameter tool with only one sentence, which is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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 all parameters (video_path, start, width, duration) are already well-described in the input schema with defaults and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it only generically refers to 'a segment of a video'—so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 explicitly states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a looping animated GIF') from a segment of a video, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like trim_video or extract_frame. The phrase 'looping animated GIF' makes the tool's unique output format unmistakable.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trim_video, extract_frame, or generate_video. It does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or context where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from 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.