Finds the clip occupying a specific time position on a video or audio track, so you can identify or inspect it in a sequence.
Gets the clip at a specific time position on a track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | Yes | The time position in seconds | |
| trackType | Yes | The type of track | |
| sequenceId | Yes | The ID of the sequence | |
| trackIndex | Yes | The track index (0-based) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Gets') but doesn't mention return format, what happens when no clip exists at the position, error handling, or any side effects. This is a minimal but incomplete disclosure for a tool with no supplementary metadata.
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, clear, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It effectively communicates the core functionality without redundancies.
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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the minimal description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain the return value structure, null behavior, or how it relates to the broader timeline context (e.g., selected track vs specified track). More detail is needed for an agent to use this reliably without additional queries.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description 'at a specific time position on a track' loosely maps to the time, trackType, and trackIndex parameters but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 action (gets), the resource (clip), and the scope (at a specific time position on a track). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool get_clip_at_playhead by explicitly mentioning 'specific time position' rather than relying on playhead context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_clip_at_playhead, get_playhead_position, or timeline inspection tools. The description implies usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.