Rename a group. Pure cosmetic — labels appear in the Inspector and describe_video output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| groupId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | Opaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Pure cosmetic' and 'labels appear in the Inspector and describe_video output' effectively communicate the side effect and exclude structural/positional changes. It still does not cover authentication or reversibility, but the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation and then adds a valuable behavioral qualification, so every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the purpose/effect are well conveyed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should help more with the required inputs, especially groupId which is opaque and has no source reference such as inspect_layers or group_layers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only describes projectId; groupId and name have no property descriptions, and the description does not sufficiently compensate. The label/Inspector statement indirectly clarifies the meaning of name, but the required groupId is left entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a concrete verb and resource: 'Rename a group' and immediately qualifies the consequence: only the label changes and it appears in the Inspector and describe_video output. This strongly distinguishes it from group geometry/behavior tools such as set_group_box and set_group_parent, and from rename_layer or rename_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context by stating the operation is purely cosmetic, so an agent can infer it is appropriate only when the group label itself needs changing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.
95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.
The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.