CutClip.one

timeline.batch

Apply SEVERAL timeline edits in ONE call — one version check, one result, one undo step, all-or-nothing (if any op fails nothing is applied and the error names the failing op). ALWAYS prefer this over repeated single-edit calls whenever you have two or more timeline edits to make (e.g. trimming five clips, setting speed on several, crossfading a run then closing gaps): it costs one round-trip instead of one per edit. Ops run in order against the live state, so a later op sees the result of an earlier one (e.g. close_gaps, then add_transitions on the now back-to-back clips). Each op is the same as the matching timeline.* tool, minus projectId/expectedVersion/actor: move_item, trim_item, set_speed, set_volume, set_transform, close_gap, close_gaps, add_transition, add_transitions, remove_transition, remove_transitions, update_transition_duration. (Creating, splitting, duplicating and deleting clips are not batchable — use their own tools.) Max 50 ops.

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>",
      "ops": "<ops>"
    },
    "name": "timeline.batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ops`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`expectedVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does so: all-or-nothing atomicity, error naming the failing op, single undo step, one version check, ops executed in order against live state so later ops see earlier results, and a hard 50-op ceiling. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before committing a multi-edit 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?

Purpose and the prefer-this rule are front-loaded, then ordering semantics, then the op vocabulary, then limits — a sensible progression with no filler sentences. The long op enumeration and stacked parentheticals make it dense, but each clause carries distinct operational information rather than repeating the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers atomicity, ordering, failure reporting, undo granularity, op vocabulary, and the batchable/non-batchable boundary. Gaps are minor: 'one result' does not say what the response contains, and no permission or auth prerequisites are mentioned.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by enumerating all twelve valid op values and stating that each op mirrors the matching timeline.* tool 'minus projectId/expectedVersion/actor' — a compact way to convey the op payload shapes. It also restates the maxItems=50 limit. It does not explain expectedVersion semantics beyond the phrase 'one version check', leaving that one parameter thin.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Apply SEVERAL timeline edits in ONE call', and immediately contrasts it with 'repeated single-edit calls'. An agent can distinguish it from timeline.move_item, timeline.trim_item and the other timeline.* siblings 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit selection rule ('ALWAYS prefer this over repeated single-edit calls whenever you have two or more timeline edits') plus concrete triggering examples (trimming five clips, crossfading a run then closing gaps). It also names what is NOT batchable — create, split, duplicate, delete — and redirects to 'their own tools', which is the exclusion guidance most definitions omit.

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.