Skip to main content
Glama

video_read

Read-only

Fetch bounded batches of saved video images with timestamps for visual inspection, and acknowledge each batch before requesting another to prevent image accumulation.

Instructions

Read 1..12 saved images (default12, max8MiB encoded image bytes). Returns currently available images without waiting to fill a batch and timestamps. after is zero-based, -1 initially. Partial pages may be limited by bytes; follow nextAfter. The host chooses evidence scope, not necessarily every image. Inspect the batch in a separate model step; call video_review ack before another image fetch. Pending batches block subsequent fetches so a loop cannot accumulate hundreds of images. replay retries lost responses. hasMore/exhausted describe production/cursor only; visualDelivery is legacy sent-byte bookkeeping, visualReview records caller acknowledgements and the chosen plan. Images default to format=jpeg (FFmpeg q:v4, 4:4:4); request format=png for original PNG detail. Encoding is cancellable with 2 active conversions per MCP process, at most 24 queued, a 30s queue deadline and a 10s execution deadline. Every image response is limited to 8MiB encoded bytes. Saved storyboard PNGs are retained. Acknowledge the pending batch before switching formats; replay preserves its original format and bytes.

The HOST chooses evidence depth from the user request and actual subtitle/ASR quality and coverage: text alone, selected storyboards, all storyboards, or targeted higher-quality follow-up. Subtitles, ASR and images are independently optional; choose any combination. For text-only media use audio_start/audio_url_start (audio-bearing video files/pages are accepted) without a visual job. No mandatory image retrieval, all-images rule, fixed answer format or mandatory ASR. Use video_review action=plan to record visual=none|selected|all; revise as evidence changes. Missing subtitles do NOT block usable images, and a video-only stream does not prove missing source audio. Each image response has a pending batch. Return images AND timestamp metadata to the model, inspect the chosen images, then call video_review action=ack with batchId and explicit viewedIndices (empty [] releases uninspected images without credit). ONLY THEN fetch another batch. Never accumulate many video_read calls inside one code/exec result: return control to the model after each bounded batch. Transport errors leave the batch pending: video_review replay retries it; status/reviewId support resume. Acknowledgement is a caller assertion, not proof of comprehension. Keep any semantic working notes in the Agent workspace, not in MCP evidence. Before finishing, video_review finish checks only the HOST-CHOSEN visual scope and pending image receipts, not text reading completion. The host must still judge if that scope answers the user, and state relevant gaps. Honest incomplete-work disclaimers do not justify abandoning feasible work. session_stop cleanup cancels processing but does not complete reading; user_cancelled is only for an explicit user cancellation. Audio-only workflows remain independent.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "video_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
afterNo
limitNo
formatNo
waitSecondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing pending-batch blocking, byte-capped partial pages with nextAfter continuation, replay for lost responses, the distinction between cursor state (hasMore/exhausted) and legacy bookkeeping fields (visualDelivery), encoding limits (2 concurrent conversions, 24 queued, 30s queue and 10s execution deadlines), and default JPEG q:v4 4:4:4 versus PNG passthrough. That is exactly the operational context readOnlyHint/idempotentHint cannot express.

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 fetch mechanics are front-loaded, but the text then sprawls into agent-level policy that does not belong in a tool definition: evidence-depth philosophy, 'honest incomplete-work disclaimers do not justify abandoning feasible work', where to keep semantic working notes, and session_stop/user_cancelled semantics. Several constraints (8MiB limit, ack-before-fetch, replay) are restated two or three times, diluting the actionable content.

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 stateful, cursor-based, byte-capped image fetch with no output schema and no annotated parameters, the description supplies nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly, including recovery paths for transport errors and resume via status/reviewId. The gaps are secondary: unexplained waitSeconds and the absence of any routing rule against the other visual tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry all meaning, and it does for most parameters: limit range/default, after being zero-based with -1 initially, format default jpeg and its encoding pipeline, plus the 8MiB cap. It leaves waitSeconds (0-20) completely unexplained and never states that id is the video/asset UUID, so one of five parameters is undocumented in both places.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource with bounds: 'Read 1..12 saved images (default12, max8MiB encoded image bytes)' and states it returns available images plus timestamps without waiting to fill a batch. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby visual siblings such as video_frame, video_sheet or video_evidence, so an agent must infer which visual-fetch tool to pick.

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?

Strong on sequencing and preconditions: ack the pending batch before another fetch, do not accumulate calls in one exec result, use audio_start/audio_url_start for text-only media, use video_review action=plan to record visual scope. What is missing is horizontal routing: it never says when to prefer video_read over video_frame, video_sheet, video_evidence or video_next, which are the real decision alternatives.

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