framesail

Split segment

split_segment

Destructive

Split a segment at the given time offsets (ms, 1-3 cuts → 2-4 parts). inherit_index picks which resulting part keeps the original creative data — that part keeps its rendered assets, SFX, overlays and continuation links (a rendered clip goes stale; re-render it). The other parts start fresh. Later segments renumber — re-check get_segments before further edits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No	True previews the consequences without changing anything
`offsets_ms`	Yes	Cut points as millisecond offsets from the segment start, ascending; 1-3 cuts producing 2-4 parts
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects
`inherit_index`	No	0-based index of the resulting part that keeps the original creative data (default: the first part)
`segment_number`	Yes	1-based number of the segment to split, as reported by get_segments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important side effects: non-inherited parts start fresh, the inherited part's rendered clip goes stale and must be re-rendered, and later segments renumber. This is exactly the behavioral depth needed for a destructive editing operation.

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 four short, information-dense sentences, each carrying distinct value: core action, inheritance behavior, freshness consequence, and renumbering warning. It is front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational consequences well: asset inheritance, stale renders, and segment renumbering. The only notable gap is that it doesn't state what the call returns (e.g., updated segment list or preview output), which would be useful since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics to inherit_index by explaining what 'keeps original creative data' actually entails: rendered assets, SFX, overlays, and continuation links, plus the stale-render consequence. This goes beyond the schema without duplicating it excessively.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Split a segment at the given time offsets' and quantifies the outcome as 1-3 cuts producing 2-4 parts. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like combine_segments or change_segment_type.

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?

It provides concrete usage context: cut count constraints, which part inherits creative data, and a warning to re-check get_segments after later segments renumber. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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

All framesail tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap in purpose, such as await_jobs/get_workflow_status/get_pipeline_progress, update_segment_content/update_segment_prompts, director_note/project_director_note, and scan_script/rescan_voice_blocks. The descriptions do a good job distinguishing them, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection, and there are more than a couple of confusable pairs.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun snake_case convention with clear prefixes like get_, list_, set_, update_, create_, and delete_. Minor exceptions such as director_note, project_director_note, browse_audio_library, and whoami keep it from being perfectly consistent.

Tool Count1/5

At 72 tools, this is far beyond the 50+ extreme range and creates a heavy navigation burden for an agent. Even though the pipeline is complex, this many tools is not well-scoped for an MCP surface.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full script-to-export pipeline: styles, assets, voices, storyboards, segments, scenes, and rendering all have substantial lifecycle support. Some gaps exist—no delete_channel, delete_segment, delete_voice_block, or delete_provider_key—but most missing operations can be worked around through existing tools.

Resources

Need Help?