Framesleuth

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyze_video is the entry point, get_* tools retrieve specific aspects of a report, list_* tools enumerate available options or reports, render tools produce output, and locate_in_code handles code grounding. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All 14 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., analyze_video, get_report, list_skills, render_html_video). No deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well-scoped for a video analysis and rendering server. It covers analysis, report retrieval, listing, rendering, and code location without being overwhelming or sparse.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is thorough for its domain: analyzing videos, retrieving all report components, rendering to multiple formats (Markdown, GitHub issue, test plan, GIF, MP4), and even grounding code locations. The only minor gap is the lack of a delete/update tool, but those are unnecessary for its core purpose.
Average 3.6/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions returning candidates and re-grounding. It does not explain the re-grounding process, side effects, authentication needs, or output structure, leaving critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is not optimally structured to convey essential information upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
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 fails to explain the return value, parameter roles, or tool behavior. With no schema annotations and minimal description, the tool is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
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%, and the description does not clarify or add meaning to the two parameters (`report_id`, `repo_root`). The agent receives no help in understanding how these parameters affect the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it returns code candidates and can re-ground, but the term 'grounded in the bundle' is jargon that obscures clarity. The verb 'locate' aligns with the tool name, but the overall purpose is vague without context on what 'code candidates' means.
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 is provided on when to use this tool over siblings. The description lacks any context on appropriate usage scenarios or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a return action, omitting any read-only nature, permission requirements, or side effects. For a non-destructive read operation, this is minimal disclosure.
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 sentence is appropriately concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though more detail would improve value without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no annotations, the description fails to compensate. Context signals show high complexity in sibling tools, requiring more guidance.
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?
The single parameter 'report_id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. The tool relies entirely on the parameter name for semantics.
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 returns a 'merged event timeline for a report', identifying the verb and resource. However, it lacks sibling differentiation; numerous get_* sibling tools exist, and 'merged event timeline' remains vague.
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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_report or get_repro_steps. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full weight. It says 'return,' implying read-only, but lacks disclosure of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse, though it could benefit from additional context.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what 'timestamped error evidence' specifically entails, nor does it help distinguish among many sibling retrieval tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'report_id' is not described in the text, despite 0% schema coverage. While its purpose is somewhat evident from its name, the description adds no semantic value or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the verb 'return' and the resource 'timestamped error evidence for a report,' providing specific intent. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_report' or 'get_repro_steps,' which could cause confusion.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the function without mentioning what the return value is (e.g., image URL, binary data) or any 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it lacks structure. It could benefit from front-loading the purpose and adding brief parameter details.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the output format (e.g., image data, URL) or any constraints, making it incomplete for inference.
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%, and the description adds no extra meaning to parameters. 'index' and 'report_id' are not explained (e.g., index base, valid report IDs).
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 action ('Return') and the resource ('keyframe image for a report by its index'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_video_gif' or 'get_report'.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites or provide context for selection among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It only states that the tool returns rendered text, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. No mention of errors or permissions needed.
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 very concise: two sentences, no fluff. Every sentence adds necessary information (purpose and format details). Front-loaded with the action.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (which likely describes the return format), the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention that the report must exist, but for a rendering tool, this is acceptable.
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?
The description adds value for the 'format' parameter by listing the allowed values (markdown, issue, test-plan), which is not in the schema's type alone. However, the required 'report_id' is not explained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the partial explanation is helpful but incomplete.
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 that the tool renders a report as a shareable artifact, and lists specific formats (markdown, issue, test-plan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_report (raw data) and render_html_video (video output), though it could be more explicit about differentiation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report or get_suggested_actions. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, description lacks behavioral details like read-only nature, side effects, or prerequisites. Simply states what it returns.
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?
Extremely concise: a single sentence that directly states the tool's function with no wasted words.
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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. Could mention that the report must exist, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The single parameter 'report_id' is self-explanatory, but description adds no extra context or format guidance beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Return', resource 'numbered reproduction steps', and scope 'for a report'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_report or get_error_evidence.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It's implied the tool is for retrieving reproduction steps for a given report_id, but no alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action of listing names and descriptions, without disclosing side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a list operation, the description does not confirm it is safe or non-destructive.
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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the purpose. Every word serves a function, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic function but omits behavioral context and fails to explain when or why to use this tool. Completeness is borderline acceptable for a simple list tool.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. However, it adds value by specifying that the output includes names and descriptions and that it is specific to 'analyze_video'. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 lists built-in action modes for 'analyze_video', specifying both names and descriptions. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_reports' and 'list_skills' by tying directly to a particular parent tool.
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 description implies usage for discovering available actions for 'analyze_video', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but missing actionable usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Provides behavioral context that the menu is recomputed and reflects latest grounding/quality. However, since no annotations exist, the description should explicitly state if it's read-only or has no side effects. It does not mention authentication or mutability.
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?
Two sentences, first defines purpose, second explains items and recomputation. No superfluous words. Information is front-loaded and clear.
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?
Covers purpose, output structure, and dynamic nature. However, lacks error handling information or any expansion on the return schema, which is present. For a simple read tool with one parameter, it is nearly complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties the single parameter 'report_id' to the report context but does not elaborate on format or constraints. Since only one parameter exists and is implied, the description adds marginal value.
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?
Clearly states the action 'Return' and the resource 'machine-readable next-step menu for a report'. Further describes the items and their use, distinguishing from sibling tools that focus on analysis, reports, or specific actions.
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?
Implies usage context through description of dynamic recomputation from current bundle, but does not explicitly state when to use or when to prefer alternatives. No mention of when not to use or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It reveals that parameters are 'clamped to safe ranges' and 'the GIF is cached on disk per parameter set,' offering useful behavioral insights. However, it does not mention permission requirements, side effects like cache eviction, or the nature of the return (binary vs. URL).
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 concise—three sentences—and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., binary data, URL) or error handling. It covers caching behavior and parameter clamping, but leaves gaps in understanding the output and potential failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions that fps, width, start, and end are optional and clamped, but fails to explain their meaning (e.g., units for time parameters, default values for fps and width). Given 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, additional detail is needed for accurate invocation.
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 action ('Render an animated GIF preview of the video for a report') with a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('animated GIF preview of the video for a report'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_keyframe_image (static) and render_html_video (different format) by emphasizing animation and GIF format.
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?
The description provides explicit use cases ('embedding a short looping preview in an issue, chat, or PR description') and notes that parameters are optional and clamped. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like analyze_video or get_keyframe_image, nor does it state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It states it lists names and descriptions, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or return structure beyond what output schema might provide.
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?
Single sentence front-loads the action and resource, with no extraneous words or redundancy.
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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could benefit from clarifying the purpose of skills in relation to analyze_video.
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?
No parameters exist, baseline 4. Description adds meaning by specifying the tool returns names and descriptions, aligning with the schema.
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 lists built-in summary skills for analyze_video, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'built-in summary skills', distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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?
Usage context is implied (for analyze_video), but no explicit guidance on when or when not to use it vs alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively communicates the read-only nature and scope (from any analyzed video). It does not disclose potential limitations like pagination or ordering, but the simplicity of the tool (no parameters) reduces the need for extensive behavioral details.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it quick to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and sibling tools provide context, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose without missing critical information.
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?
There are no parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. The description does not add parameter semantics, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4, as no additional explanation is needed.
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 lists all available report IDs from any analyzed video. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'report ids', and the scope 'all available' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_report which retrieves a specific report.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the IDs can be used with get_report, nor does it specify when not to use it. The description only states what it does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: frame-by-frame capture, quality preservation, color correction, codec details, resolution/fps range, output format (absolute path), and required dependencies (Playwright, ffmpeg). No contradictions.
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?
Well-structured single paragraph with clear segments: purpose, usage, behavior details, and requirements. Slightly verbose in listing quality claims, but overall concise and front-loaded.
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?
Covers core behavior, prerequisites, and output format. Parameter details are not explained, but schema provides defaults. With no output schema, description notes return path. Adequate for a tool with 6 params and dependencies.
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 0%, so description should compensate. It mentions output formats (mp4/gif/webm) which correspond to the 'format' parameter, but does not explain other parameters beyond what schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema has defaults and types.
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?
Clearly states verb 'render' and resource 'HTML document' to video formats. Distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_video by focusing on export of animated HTML pages.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to export a self-contained animated HTML page as a shareable clip.' Provides clear usage context but does not mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a new report id and list of outputs (summary/fix-prompt URIs, resolved action, suggested actions). It describes supported video formats. It doesn't mention side effects, but for a read-like analysis tool, this is adequate. More could be said about whether the tool modifies anything or requires specific permissions.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening line, a paragraph of context, then a list of arguments with explanations. It is concise enough (around 150 words) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy in the 'Args:' section could be tightened, but overall it's efficient.
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?
Given 7 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and an output schema existing, the description covers the key aspects: input formats, parameter meanings, and return value structure (report id, URIs, action, suggestions). It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., ffmpeg installation), but for typical usage within a coding agent environment, this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage (no enum definitions, and parameters are generic anyOf string), but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter: path (file format), repo_root (grounding references), intent (user request), skill (summary style from list_skills), system_prompt (overrides skill), action (action mode from list_actions), action_prompt (overrides action). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 explicitly states it analyzes any video and returns a report id, using strong verbs like 'analyze' and 'return'. It lists varied video types (bug recording, feature demo, etc.) and explains the output (structured Context Bundle for coding agents). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_keyframe_image or get_timeline, which deal with specific parts of the analysis.
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?
The description explains when to use the tool: to analyze any video for a coding agent. It implicitly suggests when not to use it by describing the full analysis scope, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions where other tools (e.g., get_error_evidence) are better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the return content and view options. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-like tool this is acceptable.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then succinctly explains the view parameter. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given sibling tools, this tool is comprehensive. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Description effectively covers functionality.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the view parameter with two options and meanings. Report_id is covered implicitly, though not elaborated.
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 returns a Context Bundle for a given report id, and distinguishes between 'full' and 'slim' views. It differentiates from siblings that extract specific parts.
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?
Provides guidance on when to use each view based on context window size. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the implied use cases are clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![framesleuth MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/santoshshinde2012/framesleuth/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/santoshshinde2012/framesleuth)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![framesleuth MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/santoshshinde2012/framesleuth/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/santoshshinde2012/framesleuth)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/santoshshinde2012/framesleuth'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server