Read a CapCut draft by folder name to retrieve canvas, fps, duration, timeline file, and all tracks/segments in seconds. Inspect draft structure without modifying it.
Read one draft and return canvas, fps, duration, which file holds the timeline, and every track/segment in seconds (read only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | Yes | Draft folder name inside the drafts root (from capcut_list_drafts). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does declare the operation is read-only and specifies exactly what comes back, including that segment timing is in seconds. It omits error behavior (e.g., unknown draft name) and any limits on large timelines, but the core safety and output profile is disclosed.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return contents packed efficiently into the remainder. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey return values and it does so explicitly. For a one-parameter read tool this is largely complete, though it could mention failure modes for a missing/invalid draft.
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 100% for the single 'draft' parameter, which already explains it is the draft folder name from capcut_list_drafts. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (read) and resource (one draft) and enumerates the payload fields returned (canvas, fps, duration, timeline file, tracks/segments). It implicitly contrasts with the many mutating siblings via '(read only)', but never names capcut_list_drafts or capcut_export_draft, so sibling differentiation is only partial.
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 parenthetical '(read only)' implies this is the tool for inspecting a single draft without modification, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus capcut_list_drafts (many drafts) or the export tools. Usage must be inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.