Skip to main content
Glama

run_timeline_batch

Idempotent

Run MULTIPLE timeline-tool calls in ONE request, where a LATER step can reference a value produced by an EARLIER step in the SAME batch — the fix for 'split this clip, then move just the second half': you don't know the new second-half clip's id until AFTER the split has actually run, so normally that needs two separate turns. In a batch, give the split step a step_id (e.g. "step1"), and reference its result in a later step's args as a string like "$step1.timeline.tracks.0.clips.-1.id" (dotted path into that step's own JSON result; a numeric segment like -1 indexes into a list, -1 = the last item — the newest clip on a track after a split/add is always last). tracks.N here is ordered by (video/overlay tracks first, then audio; ascending index within each) — NOT by when the track was created — so tracks.0 reliably means 'the lowest-index video track' even if an empty leftover track exists elsewhere. Still, prefer referencing a clip/track by its literal id once you have one (e.g. from an earlier step's own clip_ids or a job//timeline.txt call) over a tracks.N/clips.N positional path when you're not certain which position you mean — positional indexing is a convenience for the common 'the track/clip I just touched' case, not a stable general-purpose address. Every step's tool must be a real timeline tool name (job//timeline.txt first if you need to see a tool's exact result shape before referencing it). All-or-nothing: the first step that fails stops the whole batch immediately and later steps never run — check each entry in the response's step_results for where it stopped. Use this whenever a plan has TRUE ordering dependencies (step 2 needs data step 1 just created); for independent clips with no cross-references, add_clips_to_timeline is simpler.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYes
fieldsNo
job_idYes
response_detailNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds significant behavioral context: all-or-nothing execution, the ability to reference earlier step results, track ordering semantics, and the caveat about positional indexing. This goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is long but densely informative. It front-loads the core purpose, then systematically explains referencing, ordering, failure behavior, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing essential details.

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 complex tool with dependencies and referencing, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the referencing syntax, track ordering, failure semantics, and how to inspect result shapes via timeline.txt. It also explains the all-or-nothing behavior and where to check step_results. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the `steps` parameter: how to assign step_id, reference results with dotted paths, and the meaning of tracks.N ordering. It also implies usage of job_id through examples. It does not detail `fields` or `response_detail`, but those have defaults and are less critical.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: running multiple timeline-tool calls in one request with cross-step dependencies. It names the specific resource (timeline tools) and the action (batch execution with referencing), and differentiates from the sibling add_clips_to_timeline by noting it's simpler for independent 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: 'Use this whenever a plan has TRUE ordering dependencies' and when not to: 'for independent clips with no cross-references, add_clips_to_timeline is simpler.' Also provides guidance on referencing paths and the all-or-nothing failure behavior.

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.