create_editor_projectCreate a clean, persistent project in your real Switch Editor. The same project opens in the /editor UI and is used by the Editor agent and HyperFrames renderer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Project name. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only indicate that the operation is neither read-only nor idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the project is 'clean' and 'persistent', and it is the same project used across the /editor UI, Editor agent, and HyperFrames renderer. It does not mention potential overwrite behavior or return values, but it meaningfully supplements the sparse annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value ('real Switch Editor', 'persistent', 'used by the Editor agent and HyperFrames renderer'). There is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a tool with one simple parameter, the description explains the core behavior and integration context well. However, since there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by indicating what the tool returns (e.g., a project ID) and what happens if a project with the same name already exists, which leaves some ambiguity for an AI agent.
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 already documents the single 'name' parameter with 100% coverage, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description's 'clean, persistent' wording does not clarify parameter constraints or name uniqueness.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'project' and adds meaningful qualifiers ('clean, persistent', 'real Switch Editor') to distinguish this creation tool from sibling tools like get_editor_project, render_editor_project, and run_editor_agent. It clearly indicates the output is a persistent project rather than a temporary or virtual one.
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 on where the project is used: it opens in the /editor UI and is consumed by the Editor agent and HyperFrames renderer. This implies when to call this tool versus retrieving or rendering an existing project, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools for shared workflows.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical semantic ground: apply_iphone_realism and apply_ugc both describe casual phone-shot looks, upload_media and upload_reference_asset both accept uploads, and analyze_video overlaps heavily with analyze_video_report. The many apply_* style tools are essentially one tool parameterized by style, so agents can easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as generate_image, list_my_videos, get_editor_run, and upscale_video. A few outliers like voice, talking_avatar_video, and video_to_prompt do not use the same verb-first convention, but they are still readable and do not create significant confusion.
At 55 tools, the surface is far beyond what is appropriate for an MCP server; many of these be collapsed or parameterized, especially the 10 apply_* style wrappers and several overlapping upload/status helpers. Even for a broad media platform, this scale forces a huge context window and makes selecting the right tool impractical.
The surface covers generation, media display, video analysis, and Editor workflows well, but there are obvious gaps in library lifecycle management: move_asset and create_folder are referenced in tool descriptions without being exposed, and there is no clean way to delete or reorganize media assets. Agents following the descriptions will try to call tools that do not exist.