Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vouh-chronos-mcp

vouh-chronos-mcp

by urielhgb7-arch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Comparer une capture de référence et une reproduction

compare_captures

Compares two website motion captures by aligning motion energy with DTW, checking SSIM on aligned frames, duration within ±1 frame, and curve RMSE to validate animation reproduction.

Instructions

Compare deux captures (alignement DTW sur l'énergie de mouvement, SSIM sur les frames alignées, écart de durée à ±1 frame et RMSE des courbes).

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": {
      "reference_id": "<reference_id>",
      "candidate_id": "<candidate_id>"
    },
    "name": "compare_captures"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
candidate_idYesIdentifiant de la capture candidate
reference_idYesIdentifiant de la capture de référence

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the concrete methods used (DTW alignment, SSIM, ±1 frame duration tolerance, RMSE), which is genuinely useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or capture states are required, how long it takes, or whether a verdict/threshold is applied.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the metric list; nothing is redundant. It is slightly packed with parenthetical algorithm names, but every element adds meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the comparison returns. It enumerates the computed metrics, which implicitly suggests the return contents, but it does not state the response shape, whether a pass/fail judgment or thresholds are included, or what happens when durations differ by more than one frame.

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% and both parameters already carry descriptions identifying the reference and candidate capture IDs. The description adds no information about identifier format, ordering assumptions, or whether the comparison is symmetric, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (compare) and resource (two captures) and enumerates the comparison dimensions: DTW on motion energy, SSIM on aligned frames, duration delta at ±1 frame, and RMSE of curves. This clearly separates it from siblings such as analyze_motion or get_frames, which operate on a single capture. It does not explicitly state the sibling distinction, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions (e.g. that both captures must be previously built or extracted), and no mention of when not to use it. The reference/candidate framing is only implied by the parameter names, so the agent must infer the workflow context.

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