Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
video-tools-mcp

video-tools-mcp

by video-context
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Video metadata

video_metadata
Read-only

Read the duration, container, codecs, resolution, frame rate, rotation, bitrate, and audio details of a video from a local file path or HTTP(S) URL.

Instructions

Read the duration, container, codecs, resolution, frame rate, rotation, bitrate, and audio facts of a 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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "video_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesA local file path or an http(s) URL of a video.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description usefully discloses what information is exposed. However, it says nothing about behavior with remote URLs (network fetch, failures, redirects) or what happens on unsupported containers, so it adds only moderate context beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated field list is dense but every element is informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned facts, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it omits any mention of error/remote-fetch behavior.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains that 'input' is a local path or http(s) URL. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('video'), and enumerates exactly which facts are returned (duration, codecs, resolution, frame rate, etc.), which distinguishes it from frame/shot-oriented siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast with, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (detect_shots, extract_frames, check_keyframes, video_context). Usage is only implied by the fact that it reads metadata.

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