Skip to main content
Glama

track.create

Create a video or audio track on a project (§11.4)

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>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "track.create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
typeYes
projectIdYes
expectedVersionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'create'. It does not disclose that the call is an optimistic-concurrency write gated by expectedVersion, what happens on a stale version, whether ordering or defaults are assigned, or any permission/limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. The '§11.4' spec reference is opaque to an agent and consumes space that could have described expectedVersion, but otherwise there is no waste.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four required parameters at 0% schema coverage needs considerably more: concurrency semantics, failure modes, and what is returned (track id?) are all missing. Only the coarse purpose is complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for four required parameters. The description only echoes the type enum (video/audio) and implies projectId; it adds nothing about `name` constraints (minLength 1, uniqueness) or what `expectedVersion` means and where the caller gets it — the least obvious and most error-prone parameter.

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?

Clear verb+resource ("Create a ... track") with the target scope ("on a project") and the allowed kind ("video or audio"). It is distinguishable from track.update/delete/reorder by the operation verb, though the description doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit 'a project must exist'. Nothing tells the agent when to create a track versus using timeline.add_placeholder, or what preconditions (existing project, valid expectedVersion) must hold before calling.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.