Skip to main content
Glama
AiPersonacademy

capcut-mcp-server

by AiPersonacademy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

capcut_add_audio_clip

Add background music, sound effects, or voiceover to a CapCut project timeline, controlling volume, track, start time, and duration.

Instructions

Adds background music, sound effects, or voiceover audio to an audio track.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
volumeNoAudio volume multiplier (1.0 = 100%, 0.5 = 50%, 2.0 = 200%).
file_pathYesAbsolute path to audio file on disk (.mp3, .wav, .m4a, etc.).
track_indexNoAudio track index (0 = main audio, 1+ = secondary audio).
duration_secondsNoDuration in seconds. Defaults to entire audio file length.
project_name_or_idYesTarget project name or ID.
start_time_secondsNoStart time on timeline in seconds, or 'auto_append' to append sequentially.auto_append
source_start_secondsNoIn-point offset within the source audio file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It merely says 'adds' and does not explain whether the audio is inserted, appended, overlayed, or how it interacts with the existing timeline. It also omits any side effects, limitations, or output behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It says what the tool does quickly and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It fails to mention default behavior, return values, how omitted parameters behave, or any operational constraints, leaving important context to be inferred.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic context by naming audio types, but it does not meaningfully expand on any of the seven parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a clear action and resource: adds audio to an audio track, naming three audio types. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling capcut_add_sound_effect, which overlaps on sound effects, so the uniqueness is not fully established.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as capcut_add_sound_effect or capcut_add_audio_fade. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusion that would help an agent choose correctly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools