picorn_video_create_projectCreate a persistent video project with a real 30fps timeline, native layers, keyframes and a canonical /video/editor link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | Timeline and export FPS. Default 30. | |
| title | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| background | No | ||
| aspectRatio | No | ||
| durationFrames | No | Initial timeline duration in frames. Default 150. | |
| workspaceProjectId | No | ||
| workspaceProjectKey | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as 'persistent' and 'real 30fps timeline', but does not disclose important traits like whether existing projects are overwritten, permissions required, or what the canonical link is used for. Annotations only indicate it is a non-read operation, so the description carries some but not full burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential information efficiently. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 optional parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is too sparse. It fails to convey how to use the parameters, what the response looks like, or how it fits into the broader video editing workflow, making the tool's full context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 22%, and the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain width, height, background, aspectRatio, or workspace identifiers, nor does it clarify the meaning of fps or durationFrames beyond what the schema already states. The mention of '30fps' is a feature statement, not a parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'persistent video project' with distinctive features (real 30fps timeline, native layers, keyframes, canonical /video/editor link). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like picorn_editor_create_project and picorn_projects_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the video project context, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct contrast with sibling creation tools, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation, with clear boundaries between image generation/editing and the many editor/video actions. Descriptions further clarify any potential overlap, making misselection unlikely.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but the projects_* tools (create, inspect, update) reverse to noun_verb, and capabilities is a bare noun. This mixed convention is readable but not fully consistent.
With 30 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy for an MCP server. While the broad scope justifies some size, many tools could be consolidated or split into focused servers.
Core image, editor, and video workflows are covered, but there are notable gaps such as no delete operations for editor/video projects, no update for video projects, and no lifecycle management for imported assets. These missing operations can create dead ends.