Mirror a video horizontally or vertically to fix orientation or create a mirrored effect.
Mirror a video horizontally or vertically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | Yes | Mirror direction | |
| 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. It states the transformation but does not say whether the input video is overwritten, whether a new file is returned, or what the output format/location is. This is a significant transparency gap for a video-processing operation.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and its two possible directions. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easily scannable.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the tool's result and side effects. It fails to mention whether the original file is preserved, how the mirrored video is returned, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot fully predict the consequence of calling this tool.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the direction enum. The description adds little beyond the schema, only restating that mirroring can be horizontal or vertical, 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 uses a specific verb ('Mirror') and resource ('a video'), and scopes the operation to horizontal or vertical. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling video tools such as reverse_video, crop_video, or trim_video, whose operations are not mirror-like.
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 flip_video versus related video-editing tools, and it names no alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the minimal description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.