Fetches the complete timeline structure, tracks, media materials, and duration of a CapCut project using its name or UUID. Provides full project details for programmatic editing and analysis.
Fetches the complete timeline structure, tracks, media materials, and duration of a CapCut project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_name_or_id | Yes | The name of the project folder or the UUID draft ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the behavioral action ('fetches'), implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., what happens if the project is not found) or any other operational traits. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.
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?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and enumerates the returned data. There is zero waste or redundancy; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and lists the data returned. It could be enhanced by explicitly noting its read-only nature or any preconditions, but the current description covers the essential information an agent needs to decide whether to call it.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning for the parameter 'project_name_or_id' beyond the schema's own description. No extra value is provided in the description for this dimension.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('fetches'), a clear resource ('a CapCut project'), and enumerates exactly what is returned (timeline structure, tracks, media materials, duration). It distinguishes itself from siblings like capcut_list_projects (listing projects) and capcut_get_media_info (media details of a clip) by describing a complete content retrieval.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need the complete timeline structure or project content. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer suitable contexts. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.