Skip to main content
Glama

Clueso

by io.clueso

Duplicate a clip

duplicate_clip

Clone one clip — within the same project, or from another project — into a target project.

  • Same project: pass target_project_id and source_clip_id (omit source_project_id).

  • Cross-project: pass target_project_id, source_project_id, source_clip_id. The source clip's S3 assets (voiceover audio, original video footage, generated video, etc.) are re-hosted into the target guide's S3 namespace, so the new clip is independent of the source — deleting the source project later won't break it.

Insertion: pass after_clip_id to place immediately after a specific clip in the target. Omit to append at end.

Returns the new clip_id and its final index. Concurrency: whole-project mutation (conflict domain: the entire target project) — serialize; do not run in parallel with any other mutation on the same target_project_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
after_clip_idNoInsert after this clip ID in the target. Appends at end if omitted.
source_clip_idYesID of the clip to duplicate.
source_project_idNoCross-project mode: ID of the project the source clip lives in. Omit for same-project duplication.
target_project_idYesProject (guide) ID to insert the duplicate into.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which are minimal. The description compensates thoroughly by disclosing S3 asset re-hosting, independence from source project (deleting source later won't break the new clip), insertion behavior, return value shape (clip_id and final index), and concurrency domain (entire target project as a conflict domain). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured: one core sentence, then bullet-point-style sections for modes, insertion, returns, and concurrency. Every sentence provides unique guidance with no fluff or repetition.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema and only three basic annotations, the description fully covers all necessary behavioral details: both modes, asset independence, insertion, return value, and concurrency. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of parameter combinations (e.g., when to omit source_project_id) and the effect of after_clip_id, which goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions. However, it doesn't reference the target_project_id parameter explicitly beyond its brief schema description, so the added value is strong but not exhaustive.

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 begins with a clear verb ('Clone') and resource ('one clip'), and immediately distinguishes two distinct modes (same-project vs cross-project) with precise parameter guidance. This differentiates it from sibling tools like duplicate_project or add_clips.

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?

Explicitly states when to use different parameter combinations for same-project vs cross-project duplication, and gives specific guidance on insertion behavior via after_clip_id. Also provides concurrency guidance ('serialize; do not run in parallel'), which helps the agent decide usage timing.

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

All Clueso 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between remove_elements and remove_from_project(target='element'), which both remove elements from a clip. This duplication could cause an agent to misselect. Otherwise, tools like add_clips, add_elements, add_audio, and analyze_audio are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_clips, create_project, get_clip, update_elements). There are no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even compound names like voiceover_batch and auto_sync fit the pattern. This makes the tool set predictable for an agent.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the set is significantly larger than the 3-15 range that typically earns its place. While the domain of video creation is broad, several tools seem redundant (remove_elements vs remove_from_project) or narrowly scoped (get_design_guide, get_element_schema), inflating the count. The number feels heavy for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: create, read, update, delete for projects, clips, elements, audio, articles, and clueprints. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to delete a voiceover (only mute via update_clips) and no folder management beyond listing. Overall, agents can accomplish full workflows with few workarounds.

Resources