MoviePy MCP Server

by vive1101011

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

remove_audio

Remove the audio track from a video clip, returning a muted copy for silent playback or further editing.

Instructions

Return a muted copy of a video clip (audio track removed).

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": {
      "clip_id": "<clip_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_audio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`clip_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the operation is non-destructive ('copy') and that the audio track is removed. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, behavior when the clip lacks an audio track, or any permissions/constraints. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential operation and result efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the operation and non-destructive outcome. It lacks deeper context about edge cases or relationships to sibling operations, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'video clip' context, implying clip_id identifies the source clip. However, it does not explicitly define clip_id or describe format/constraints. For a single, self-explanatory parameter, this minimal compensation is acceptable but not thorough.

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 function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('muted copy of a video clip'), and explicitly clarifies 'audio track removed'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_audio (extracts audio) or set_volume (adjusts volume).

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 purpose implies usage for removing audio from a video clip, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. There is no direct comparison to siblings like extract_audio or attach_audio.

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