Retrieve a managed project's summary, paged clip IDs with timing, or full plan. Filter clips by track and paginate with limit/offset for efficient inspection.
Read a compact summary; view=clips returns paged clip IDs/timing (limit<=200). Use track to filter a clip page. view=full explicitly returns the complete plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| view | No | summary | |
| limit | No | ||
| track | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only safety. The description adds value by detailing return behavior: compact summary, paged clip IDs/timing, view=full returning complete plan, and a limit constraint. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about pagination and output format, though it doesn't describe the summary's structure or offset behavior.
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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose ('Read a compact summary') and then efficiently conveys view options and constraints. Every sentence adds value, and it's well-structured for quick parsing.
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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases: views, pagination limit, and filtering. It lacks details on offset, the content of the default summary view, and possible other views, but overall it's reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains view modes, limit<=200 constraint, and track filter, adding meaning to those parameters. It doesn't mention offset, but offset is a standard pagination parameter. Overall, it clarifies key parameters and constraints, though not exhaustively.
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 clearly states the tool reads a compact summary of a managed project, with specific view options. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reading a single project's summary, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like list_managed_projects. The verb 'read' and resource 'managed project' are specific enough.
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 gives internal usage guidance (view=clips vs view=full, track filtering, limit<=200) but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like list_managed_projects or read_native_draft. It implies usage context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.