Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
video-analyzer

video-analyzer

by thomasbrosch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_videos

Scans a directory to identify supported video files, letting you preview which videos are available for analysis before processing.

Instructions

List all supported video files in a directory. Use this to preview which files will be analyzed before running analyze_video.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "list_videos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to a directory to scan for video files.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does clarify that this is a directory scan producing a preview list. However, it does not define what 'supported' means, whether scanning is recursive, or any permission/error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the workflow purpose. 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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete and covers the preview workflow. The only minor gap is ambiguity around what qualifies as a 'supported' video file.

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 coverage is 100%, so the only parameter is already documented as a directory path. The description's phrase 'in a directory' is consistent but adds no syntax or filtering detail 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 states a specific verb and resource: list supported video files in a directory. It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling by framing it as a preview step before analyze_video.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool before running analyze_video, giving a clear workflow condition and naming the alternative. It does not state when not to use it, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools