FableCut

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: docs, project retrieval, targeted patching, full replacement, reference analysis, media import, and status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use the 'fablecut_' prefix and a verb_noun pattern for most (e.g., fablecut_get_project, fablecut_import_media). However, 'fablecut_docs' and 'fablecut_status' are noun-only, breaking the pattern slightly.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a video editor MCP: status, docs, import media, get/set/patch project, and analyze reference. Each tool serves a clear purpose without excess.
Completeness4/5
Covers core CRUD for clips and media, project settings, and advanced reference analysis. Minor gaps like explicit track management or export are absent, but the set supports common editing workflows.
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 102 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
View related servers

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses it copies and registers the file, and returns a media entry. However, it omits details like file existence checks, type validation, error handling, side effects on project state, and whether the file is copied or moved.
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 sentences: first defines action and scope, second explains return value. No wasted words, efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one parameter. Description covers purpose and return value adequately. Missing details on error cases, duplicate handling, or permissions, but acceptable for a basic import. No output schema, so return information is useful.
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 has 100% coverage describing 'path' as absolute path. Description adds 'local media file' reinforcing that the source is local. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the parameter well and description adds minimal extra meaning.
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?
Description states it copies a local media file into FableCut's media library and registers it in the project, specifying media types (video/audio/image). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle docs, project settings, analysis, and status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when importing media into the project, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or prerequisites (e.g., file must exist and be accessible). Siblings are not media-related, so no direct alternative, but context could be clearer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It describes the output format options but does not mention error conditions, permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent (implied read-only). The description is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence efficiently delivers a valuable tip. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given only one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main scenario (obtaining the project with optional compact format). However, it omits details like error handling, what the full JSON looks like, or behavior when the project is missing. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the parameter compact with a basic description. The description adds meaningful context: 'one-line-per-clip summary (ids, tracks, timings, non-default props)' and advises when to use each mode, going beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'FableCut project (the timeline document)', distinguishing it from sibling tools that patch or set projects. The compact option is also mentioned, adding specificity.
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?
The token tip provides explicit guidance on when to use compact:true versus full JSON, which helps the agent decide the parameter value. However, it does not compare against sibling tools like fablecut_status or fablecut_analyze_reference, so usage boundaries are not fully delineated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the path is copied into media automatically, threshold has adaptive defaults, and registerMusic extracts and registers the music track on A1. No contradictions or hidden side effects are apparent.
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 moderately long but well-structured: purpose first, then outputs, then recipe, then cross-reference. Each sentence adds value, but minor redundancy (e.g., 'Remake recipe' repeats some info). Still efficient for the amount of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (shot boundaries, per-shot audio energy, beats, BPM, loudness curve, drop, extracted music) and provides a complete recipe for using the blueprint. It also references documentation for further details. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value: for 'path' it clarifies absolute vs. media/ src; for 'threshold' it explains adaptive default values (0.30→0.20→0.12) and tuning guidance; for 'registerMusic' it describes extraction and registration. This enhances understanding beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes a reference video into an EDIT BLUEPRINT for rebuilding with different footage over same music. It lists specific outputs (shot boundaries, per-shot audio energy, beats, BPM, loudness curve, drop, extracted music) and distinguishes from siblings via cross-reference to documentation.
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?
The description explicitly says when to use (analyze reference for remake) and provides a step-by-step remake recipe. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling tool names imply its specific role. Cross-reference to docs enhances guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: auto-starting the web server. Does not detail error handling or idempotency, but for a status tool, this is adequate transparency.
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?
A single sentence that concisely conveys purpose, behavior, and usage recommendation. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality and usage. Could mention response details more explicitly, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in schema, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as ensuring the editor web server is running (auto-start) and retrieving the editor URL, project summary, and media library. It distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Call this first in a session.'
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 states 'Call this first in a session,' providing clear usage guidance as a prerequisite. Lacks details on when not to use or alternatives, but the instruction is sufficient for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses merge-safe design, atomic save, all-or-nothing behavior, updateClip merge rules, and op details comprehensively.
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?
Single paragraph densely packs all info, but is well-structured with op list. Could be slightly more segmented, but every sentence earns its place.
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?
Lacks description of return value (e.g., success/error response), but covers behavior, parameters, and merge details thoroughly. Minor gap given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema parameter 'ops' defers to description, which provides exhaustive shapes for each op type and merge rules, adding immense value beyond the 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 it applies targeted edits to a FableCut project without round-tripping, distinguishing it from siblings like get+set. Uses specific verbs and resources.
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 recommends this tool over get+set due to cost and merge safety, but does not mention when to use alternatives (e.g., for complex edits needing full document).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auto-bumped revision, instant hot-reload, conflict error and retry pattern, and force overwrite behavior. No annotations to contradict.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences covering all crucial aspects without waste.
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?
Explains behavior well but lacks description of return value. Given set operation, minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, description adds value by clarifying the 'project' must be complete and the read-modify-write cycle, and explains 'force' usage.
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 it replaces the project JSON with the complete document, distinguishing from patch tools. Verb 'replace' with resource 'project' is specific.
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 instructs to read, modify, send whole. Provides conflict-safety retry guidance. Could mention that partial updates should use fablecut_patch_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Return the documentation'), but does not explicitly state it has no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it successfully conveys the non-destructive nature through context.
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 clear sentences plus a token tip. Front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words. Every sentence earns its place.
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 documentation retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, and filtering. It could mention what happens if a section is not found, but given the lack of output schema and low complexity, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the schema: explains the substring match behavior, provides concrete examples (props, Recipes, Remake), and offers a token-saving tip. This fully compensates for the schema's brief parameter description.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the FableCut project schema documentation'. It lists specific content areas (clips, tracks, props, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which handle project data manipulation or analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Read this before editing', indicating when to use this tool (before making edits). The token tip provides optimization guidance. While alternatives are not named, the context signals show siblings operate on projects, not documentation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![FableCut MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ronak-create/FableCut/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ronak-create/FableCut)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![FableCut MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ronak-create/FableCut/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ronak-create/FableCut)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ronak-create/FableCut'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server