Inspect an open video draft to return its structured timeline: tracks, segments, timing, and materials. Use it to verify edits as an acceptance check.
Return the structured timeline of the open draft: tracks, segments, timing and materials. Use this as the acceptance check after editing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Open draft name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it implies a non-mutating inspection and lists the returned structure, which is real value. It does not state failure behavior (e.g. what happens if no draft is open) or whether the read has any side effects, so gaps remain.
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, zero waste, and the core action plus return payload is front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing redundant with the name or schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned timeline fields. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, though it omits the precondition that a draft must already be open via jianying_open_draft.
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 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already documents it; baseline 3 applies. The phrase 'the open draft' loosely confirms the parameter means the currently open draft, but adds no new syntax or constraint information.
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 ('Return the structured timeline of the open draft') and enumerates the payload (tracks, segments, timing, materials). Scoping to 'the open draft' separates it from jianying_list_drafts (all drafts) and from the mutating add_*/remove_*/save_* siblings.
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?
'Use this as the acceptance check after editing' gives a concrete trigger tied to the sibling mutation tools, so the agent knows when to reach for it. It stops short of naming an alternative or an explicit when-not condition, but the usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.