CutClip.one

scenario.update

Revise a staged scenario's concept, treatment, and/or scene list before applying it — e.g. after the user asks for a pacing or tone change. Only the fields provided are changed.

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.update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scenes`	No
`concept`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`treatment`	No
`scenarioId`	Yes
`expectedVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses patch semantics ('Only the fields provided are changed'), but it never explains the required expectedVersion concurrency token, what happens on a version mismatch, whether the stage is destructive to existing scenes, or what the call returns — major gaps for a mutation on nested data.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and its timing constraint front-loaded and the patch-semantics caveat placed second where it matters. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has a deep nested schema (scenes/shots/camera), no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description says nothing about optimistic concurrency, the effect of revision on downstream shots or prompts, or the response shape. For a nested, versioned mutation this leaves too much for the agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only names three of six parameters (concept, treatment, scenes). The two most consequential parameters, expectedVersion and scenarioId, are never mentioned, and no meaning is added beyond the bare field names it does repeat.

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 uses a clear verb ('Revise') plus the specific resource ('a staged scenario's concept, treatment, and/or scene list') and scopes it temporally with 'before applying it', which separates it from scenario.apply_to_timeline and scenario.create. It stops short of naming the sibling tools explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference from the phrase 'before applying it'.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context ('after the user asks for a pacing or tone change') and an implicit precondition ('staged... before applying it'), which is enough for an agent to know when to reach for this over a full recreate. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for editing an already-applied scenario, so the routing is clear but not complete.

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

All CutClip.one tools Inspect

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.