Create a sequential video composition stored as JSON locally. Define name, resolution, and fps to start a new editing project, no API or database required.
Create a sequential composition, stored locally as JSON. No API, no database.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 does add useful context by stating the composition is stored locally as JSON and involves no API or database, which clarifies persistence and side effects. However, it does not disclose what happens on overwrite, permissions needed, or what the tool returns.
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 extremely concise with no filler. Both sentences add distinct value: the first defines the action and resource, the second clarifies the storage and side-effect profile. It is appropriately front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description omits essential usage context: there is no mention of return values, resource IDs, how the composition is referenced by sibling tools, or the relationship between 'name' and the local JSON file. Without an output schema, the agent lacks critical information about what to do after calling this tool.
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 by explaining parameter meanings or usage. It provides no information about 'name', 'width', 'height', or 'fps', leaving the agent to rely solely on schema defaults and 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a sequential composition', and adds meaningful storage details ('stored locally as JSON'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like comp_add_clip or comp_add_overlay, but the creation-action is distinct enough for an agent to infer the tool's core purpose.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or ordering relative to sibling tools like comp_add_clip or comp_get_timeline. The 'No API, no database' statement describes behavior rather than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.