more_momentsLists moments JustClip found in a project but did not clip, best first, so you can turn one into a clip with make_clip (free).
List the moments JustClip found in a project but did not make into clips, best first. Turn one into a clip with make_clip (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many (default 20). | |
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the result ordering ('best first'), the fact that these are unmatched/leftover moments, and a cost signal ('free'). It doesn't cover pagination behavior, but with annotations carrying the safety profile a 4 is fair.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, and the scoping/ordering constraint is front-loaded ahead of the next-step pointer. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description says what the list contains and how it is ordered, plus the follow-up action. The one gap is the shape of a returned moment — it doesn't indicate what identifier to hand to make_clip — but the essentials are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: limit is documented with its default, projectId has no description at all. The description implies project scoping ('in a project') but adds no format, ID source, or default detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (list) and a precisely scoped resource: moments found in a project but not turned into clips, ordered best first. The 'did not make into clips' qualifier inherently distinguishes it from list_clips and other clip-oriented siblings without the agent needing to open a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Turn one into a clip with make_clip (free).' That tells the agent this is the discovery step in a make_clip workflow. There is no when-not guidance or exclusion of alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.