Skip to main content
Glama

FilmLab

by com.thefilmradar
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Apply Timeline Manifest

lab_timeline_apply
Idempotent

Write a WHOLE cut into a sequence in one call — clips in order with their lengths, an optional dissolve between them, an optional bed underneath. This is the counterpart to lab_get_sequence: that one reads the timeline, this one writes it. Prefer it over a chain of lab_add_clip calls whenever you already know the whole cut: a chain that breaks in the middle leaves half a sequence behind, this either applies or refuses. Costs nothing — it validates and writes rows, it generates nothing. Every video_id is checked against the project BEFORE anything is written, so a wrong id is a refusal here and not a gap in the cut nobody notices. Pass sequence_id to write into THAT sequence; omit it and a new one is created. Pass sequence_id WITHOUT a manifest to read back the stored cut as a manifest — for an agent that already has the sequence_id and wants to see what is in there before changing it. (The Resolve bridge does NOT go through here: it talks to the FilmLab server directly with its own bridge key and does not know this MCP.) Reworking a cut you read back? Keep each clip's clip_id. A clip that comes back with its identity keeps its track, its in-point in the source and its scene, and the shots bound to it stay bound; a clip without one is treated as new and gets a fresh identity, which orphans whatever pointed at the old one. Two honest limits: the Resolve bridge applies the clips but reports uebergang and the bed's level/fade as not applied (its scripting API has neither a transition call nor a clip volume property). The FilmLab sequence render applies the bed with its level and fade, but NOT uebergang yet — dissolves are stored and render as hard cuts (checked 2026-10-03).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoTitle for the sequence created when `sequence_id` is omitted
manifestNoThe cut as one object. Omit it only together with a `sequence_id`, to read back what is stored
project_idYesProject id (from lab_list_projects) — positive integer as string
sequence_idNoSequence to write into (from lab_create_sequence/lab_list_sequences). Omit to create a new one. Given WITHOUT a manifest, the stored manifest is read back instead of written
erwartete_revisionNoThe `revision` you read (from lab_get_sequence or this tool's read-back). The cut is written only if the sequence still has exactly that content — otherwise nothing is written and you get `revision_veraltet` with the current revision: read again, merge, write again. Without it this tool still protects the moment between its own read and write, but not the time since YOU read the sequence.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / manifest / properties / bett / properties / asset_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Storage key of an audio file in this project (from lab_add_media or lab_list_assets). Stable — prefer it over a URL: the URLs lab_list_assets hands out are signed and expire after 24 h",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / manifest / properties / bett / properties / audio_id / description
      Previous value: -"Id of an audio row in this project (from lab_list_audio). Either this or url"New value: +"Id of an audio row in this project (from lab_list_audio). One of audio_id, asset_key, url"
    • changedInput schema / properties / manifest / properties / bett / properties / url / description
      Previous value: -"Direct URL of the bed. Either this or audio_id"New value: +"Direct URL of the bed (external). A signed FilmLab asset URL is turned into its storage key, so it does not expire inside the sequence"
    • changedInput schema / properties / manifest / properties / uebergang / description
      Previous value: -"One transition kind between ALL clips. Stored on the sequence; the Resolve bridge cannot apply it"New value: +"One transition kind between ALL clips. Stored on the sequence — but neither the Resolve bridge nor the FilmLab render applies it yet: the cut renders with hard cuts"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / erwartete_revision
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `revision` you read (from lab_get_sequence or this tool's read-back). The cut is written only if the sequence still has exactly that content — otherwise nothing is written and you get `revision_veraltet` with the current revision: read again, merge, write again. Without it this tool still protects the moment between its own read and write, but not the time since YOU read the sequence.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false): it discloses all-or-nothing atomicity ('either applies or refuses'), pre-write video_id validation, zero generation cost, the clip_id identity rule (kept identity retains track/in-point/scene and bound shots; a fresh identity orphans referrers), and two concrete downstream limits (Resolve bridge ignores uebergang and bed level/fade; FilmLab render stores dissolves but renders hard cuts). This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with rationale, modes, and caveats in a logical order; every sentence carries information. It is dense and on the long side, with parenthetical asides (the Resolve bridge note) that could be trimmed, but nothing is 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?

For a nested-manifest, concurrency-guarded write tool with no output schema, the description covers the return-relevant behaviors (refusal on bad id, revision_veraltet on stale writes), both write and read-back modes, and downstream application limits — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: sequence_id's dual write/read-back role, the clip_id identity-vs-orphan distinction, and the optimistic-concurrency contract for erwartete_revision ('written only if the sequence still has exactly that content... you get revision_veraltet'). It stops short of fully restating the nested manifest field constraints, which the schema already covers.

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+resource with scope: 'Write a WHOLE cut into a sequence in one call — clips in order with their lengths, an optional dissolve between them, an optional bed underneath.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from lab_get_sequence ('that one reads the timeline, this one writes it') and from lab_add_clip chains, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Prefer it over a chain of lab_add_clip calls whenever you already know the whole cut'), the failure-mode rationale (a broken chain leaves half a sequence), and the two conditional modes: pass sequence_id to write into that sequence, omit to create, or pass sequence_id without a manifest to read back. Alternatives and conditions are both named.

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

All FilmLab toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources