Generate transcript-keyed b-roll suggestions for human review without automatic insertion. Configure max proposals, minimum span, and keyword allowlist.
Transcript-keyed b-roll proposals — human review required, never silent insert.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| segments | Yes | ||
| max_proposals | No | ||
| min_span_seconds | No | ||
| keyword_allowlist | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output is proposal-only and requires human review, but it does not cover permissions, side effects, or whether any artifacts are created.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core function and safety constraint immediately, making it structurally efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage alternatives, the definition is too sparse for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without guessing parameter semantics.
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% and there are 4 parameters, yet the description explains none of them. It does not clarify what 'segments' should contain or what 'max_proposals', 'min_span_seconds', and 'keyword_allowlist' control.
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 gives a specific verb ('propose'), resource ('b-roll'), and keying mechanism ('transcript-keyed'). The phrase 'never silent insert' distinguishes it from tools that actually edit the timeline, though no sibling tool is named directly.
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?
It implies usage by stating 'human review required, never silent insert,' which signals a human-in-the-loop proposal workflow rather than automatic application. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like video_edit or video_propose_mutations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.