Skip to main content
Glama

studio.cut_range

Cut a span of TIME out of the whole video. Everything after it moves earlier by the same amount, on every lane at once - scenes, clips, captions and stickers stay in sync. A scene or voice clip the cut lands inside is SPLIT, so the material after the cut still plays. A scene piece the cut would leave under 100ms merges into the scene beside it; when no scene beside it has the footage, the cut widens to that scene's edge on every lane, and cut_start_ms / cut_end_ms report the range applied. Refuses when splitting a scene would pass the 100-scene cap (delete a scene first) and when a locked track holds clips after the cut (unlock it with lock_track). Not undoable.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "start_ms": "<start_ms>",
      "end_ms": "<end_ms>"
    },
    "name": "studio.cut_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_msYesWhere the cut ends, in ms on the timeline.
start_msYesWhere the cut starts, in ms on the timeline.
project_idYesThe studio project (vp_…) this tool acts on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds rich behavioral detail beyond the lone readOnlyHint=false annotation: all-lane ripple shifting, splitting at scene/voice boundaries, sub-100ms merge rules, widening to scene edges, reporting of applied cut range, and refusal cases for the 100-scene cap and locked tracks. It also explicitly states the operation is not undoable, which is critical for a mutation tool.

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 dense but front-loaded around the core action, then layers in ripple, split, merge, refusal, and undo semantics. Every sentence carries necessary behavioral information with no filler.

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 complexity of a cross-lane ripple cut and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the important side effects, edge cases, failure modes, and applied-range reporting. An agent has enough context to invoke this correctly or recognize when it will be refused.

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 100%, so start_ms, end_ms, and project_id are already well documented. The description adds operational context about how the range is applied and widened, but it does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: cutting a span of TIME out of the whole video, with ripple behavior across every lane. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from clip-level trims or single-element deletions.

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 explains what the operation does and lists refusal conditions, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with siblings like studio.ripple_delete, studio.trim_clip, or studio.remove_silence. Usage is implied by the ripple/split semantics rather than directly guided.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources