get_editor_projectInspect one of your persistent Switch Editor projects. Omit project_id for your latest project; include_payload=true returns its full editable state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | ||
| include_payload | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral details: projects are persistent, omitting project_id selects the latest, and include_payload=true returns the full editable state. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences provide all essential information with no filler. Every phrase earns its place and directly aids tool selection and invocation.
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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description is adequate. It covers purpose, parameter behavior, and default selection, but the absence of an output schema means the agent does not know exactly what a non-payload response contains.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden. It explains project_id's omission behavior and include_payload's effect, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types. It stops short of specifying the default payload behavior or exact response shape.
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 verb 'Inspect' clearly identifies this as a read operation on Switch Editor projects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_editor_project and get_editor_run by emphasizing persistent projects and the ability to retrieve the current 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 provides clear usage context: inspect persistent projects, omit project_id for the latest, and include_payload for full state. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
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.