Retrieve the complete timeline edit for a project, including every clip's source and timeline in/out points, filters, transitions, and titles so agents can inspect or modify the edit.
Return the whole edit: every clip with producer_id, source in/out, timeline start/end, filters, transitions and titles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by using 'Return' and describes the returned scope, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention permissions or prerequisites, or describe what happens if the project is missing.
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 that lists the returned components without filler. Every phrase contributes to describing the output scope.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns in reasonable detail. However, it leaves the sole required parameter undocumented and gives no usage or behavioral context, so it is only partially 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?
There is one required parameter, project_name, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention project_name at all, so it provides no meaning, expected format, or naming guidance beyond the bare schema constraints.
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 ('Return') and resource ('the whole edit'), then enumerates the returned content (clips, source in/out, filters, transitions, titles). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related read siblings like project_info or list_projects.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_info, list_projects, or render. The implied usage is to inspect the full timeline, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.