Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CutClip.one

by one.cutclip
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

scenario.apply_to_timeline

The high-level film-building tool (§34): materializes a staged scenario into real tracks, scenes, placeholders, and timeline items in one atomic, undoable step. Creates a video track with one placeholder per scene; optionally a Music track with one placeholder spanning the whole scenario, an SFX track with a per-scene placeholder wherever a scene has a soundPrompt, and a Voice track wherever a scene has a voicePrompt. When createPromptPlaceholders is true (default), each scene's videoPrompt/soundPrompt/voicePrompt is attached immediately so placeholders start at status prompt_ready.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "expectedVersion": "<expectedVersion>",
      "scenarioId": "<scenarioId>"
    },
    "name": "scenario.apply_to_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
optionsNo
projectIdYes
scenarioIdYes
expectedVersionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses atomicity, undoability, exactly which tracks/placeholders are created under which conditions, and the prompt_ready status side effect. It omits what happens on a version conflict and what permissions/state the project must be in, which are material for a multi-entity mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the identity of the tool, then expands into creation semantics and the default placeholder behavior in dense but relevant sentences. The '(§34)' spec reference and the trailing status detail are slightly extraneous but nothing is wasted.

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 complex multi-entity mutation with nested options, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should also say what comes back (created track/item IDs, resulting version). It thoroughly covers the write behavior but leaves return values and concurrency failure handling unaddressed, which an agent needs in order to chain follow-up calls.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of the nested options flags (musicTrack, voiceTrack, soundEffectsTrack, createPromptPlaceholders default true) but only implicitly covers videoTrack and gives no meaning for the three required top-level parameters, notably expectedVersion's optimistic-concurrency role. The options object is well served; the required params are not.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource — materializes a staged scenario into tracks, scenes, placeholders and timeline items — and even names the conceptual scope ('high-level film-building tool'). This clearly distinguishes it from granular siblings like timeline.add_placeholder or track.create, so an agent can choose it without opening the schema.

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?

Calling itself the 'high-level film-building tool' that does everything 'in one atomic step' implicitly routes the agent here instead of looping over timeline.add_placeholder / track.create. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. 'use timeline.add_placeholder to add a single item later') and no stated prerequisite that a scenario must already be staged with scenes.

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