Start a new empty MLT/Shotcut project with configurable width, height, and frame rate so you can set the canvas to match the delivery format before adding clips.
Create a new empty MLT/Shotcut project. Choose width/height to match the delivery (e.g. 1080x1920 for vertical).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the project is 'empty', which is useful state information, but it doesn't say what happens if a project with the same name already exists, where the file is written, what is returned (e.g. a project id), or whether creation can fail. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, these gaps are significant.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the parameter hint follows immediately, which is an efficient structure for a short definition.
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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and the most important dimension choices. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the unexplained fps parameter and the absence of any statement about the result or destination leave it only minimally complete.
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 for all four parameters. It explains the width/height intent with a concrete example, but 'fps' is never mentioned and 'name' is only implied by the tool's purpose, leaving two parameters with no semantic support beyond their types.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new empty MLT/Shotcut project'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_projects, project_info, and add_clip. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the creation-versus-inspection boundary is obvious from the wording.
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 only guidance given is about picking width/height to match the delivery format ('e.g. 1080x1920 for vertical'), which is parameter advice rather than when-to-use advice. There is no statement about when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, nor about prerequisites such as the project needing to exist before add_clip calls. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.