Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CutClip.one

by one.cutclip
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

project.import

Create a brand-new project from a project.export JSON document. Only relinks media whose asset id still exists and is owned by ownerId; anything else comes in unresolved.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "project.import"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: media is only relinked when the asset id still exists and is owned by ownerId, everything else arrives unresolved. That is valuable beyond what the schema shows. It omits failure/rollback behavior, whether an existing project could be overwritten, and what the caller gets back, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the media-relinking caveat immediately after. No filler. The only blemish is the unexplained 'ownerId' reference, which costs a moment of interpretation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a high-complexity mutation tool with a deep nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the most dangerous pitfall (silent unresolved media) but does not address the name-vs-data.project.name ambiguity, validation/duplicate errors, or what the caller should expect on success. Adequate but with clear gaps 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.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema is a large nested payload, so the description has room to help. It does clarify that 'data' is a project.export document, but introduces 'ownerId', which is not a top-level parameter, and never disambiguates the 'name' parameter from 'data.project.name'. The heavy lifting is left to the nested schema keys.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Create a brand-new project') and scopes the source as a 'project.export JSON document', which implicitly separates it from the sibling project.create. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating the distinction explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the mention of a project.export document — an agent can infer this is the counterpart to project.export, not the way to build a project from scratch. There is no explicit 'use this when…', no mention of project.create as the alternative for a blank/from-scratch project, and no stated prerequisites such as required ownership or permissions.

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

All CutClip.one 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