Skip to main content
Glama

clipkit

by dev.clipkit

Load a shared project back into the session

load_project
Destructive

Import a previously shared project as the current project, by its share id or its editor URL (e.g. https://clipkit.dev/editor?id=…), returning its project_id. Use this to continue working on a project the user opened in the editor or shared earlier — the round-trip for open_in_editor. Pass an existing project_id to load into that project; omit it to load into a new one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
id_or_urlYesA share id, or a clipkit.dev/editor?id=… URL.
project_idNoWhich project to act on — the id returned by create_project / set_project / create_promo / load_project. ALWAYS pass it once a project exists in this conversation; omitting it on a build tool creates a brand-new project. (Omit only on the local stdio server working a single project.)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthNo
heightNo
durationNo
project_idYes
element_countYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose destructive and open-world hints; the description adds useful context by explaining the project_id behavior ('load into that project' vs 'load into a new one') and that it returns a project_id. It does not explicitly warn about overwriting existing content, but the annotations cover the safety profile and nothing contradicts them.

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?

Three terse sentences that front-load the core action, then provide usage context, then parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, mechanism, return value, relationship to siblings, and parameter behavior. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it clarifies the id_or_url accepts a share id or editor URL with an example, and it explains the behavior of omitting vs providing project_id beyond the schema description. This goes beyond the schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('previously shared project') and clearly states the outcome ('as the current project'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by calling itself 'the round-trip for open_in_editor', making its role unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Use this to continue working on a project the user opened in the editor or shared earlier') and defines the relationship with open_in_editor. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the round-trip framing is effective context.

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

All clipkit toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: project lifecycle (create, set, load, get, describe, validate), element manipulation (add, edit, delete), asset ingestion, preview, promo creation, schema access, and documentation. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, e.g., create_project, add_element, describe_project. No deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools is well-scoped for a video editing server, covering project management, element editing, asset handling, preview, validation, and promo generation without being excessive or sparse.

Completeness4/5

Core CRUD operations for projects and elements are covered, along with asset ingestion, schema access, and preview. However, the critical render_video tool is mentioned in descriptions but missing from the tool list, creating a notable gap in the workflow.

Resources