Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
video-url-analyzer-mcp

video-url-analyzer-mcp

by u2n4
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ask_video_context

Answer questions about video content using saved transcripts and context, without needing Gemini. Specify video URL and question for accurate responses.

Instructions

Answer a question from saved video context without Gemini by default.

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": {
      "video_id_or_url": "<video_id_or_url>",
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "ask_video_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailNocompact
questionYes
use_geminiNo
video_id_or_urlYes
reanalyze_if_neededNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'without Gemini by default' but does not explain the behavioral implications of parameters like use_gemini, reanalyze_if_needed, or what 'saved video context' means. No disclosure of prerequisites or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is just one sentence, which is too brief to be useful. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and fails to front-load enough information for effective tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters. It does not cover parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'video context' and 'without Gemini', but provides no explanation for parameters: detail, reanalyze_if_needed, video_id_or_url format, or the question parameter. The enum values for detail are not described.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it answers a question from saved video context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ask_about_video, which may have a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ask_about_video or others. The description implies usage for saved video context without Gemini, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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