atem_edl_markerDrops a timeline marker at the current moment during EDL logging and exports it as a DaVinci Resolve markers EDL, so you can flag clips for social or later editing as they happen.
Drop a timeline marker at the current moment while EDL logging (e.g. "mark that", "clip that for social"). Exported as a Resolve markers EDL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Marker note | Marker |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds the useful downstream detail that markers are exported as a Resolve markers EDL, but omits the failure mode when no EDL session is active and whether the marker is confirmed in an EDL file or only in memory.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the parenthetical examples add color without bloat. The phrasing 'while EDL logging' is slightly compressed and could be mistaken for an adverbial clause rather than a precondition.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies adequate purpose and export context. The main missing piece is the session prerequisite and the behavior when it is unmet, which matters because this tool only makes sense mid-session.
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?
With a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Marker note', default 'Marker'), the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no information about the note field, which is acceptable at this coverage level but is not additive.
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 and resource ('Drop a timeline marker at the current moment') and scopes it to an active EDL logging session, which clearly separates it from the state-management siblings atem_edl_start/stop/status. It stops short of an explicit statement about what 'current moment' means (wall clock vs. last edit point), but an agent can still tell what the tool does.
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 phrase 'while EDL logging' plus the voice-trigger examples ('mark that', 'clip that for social') implies usage during a logging session, which is reasonable guidance. However, it never states that atem_edl_start must have been called first, nor what happens if the tool is invoked outside a session, and it doesn't route to any alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.