flow_add_clips_to_sceneAdd video clips to a scene timeline in order using media or generation IDs. Appends clips by default, or insert at a chosen index for precise sequencing.
Place videos on a scene timeline, in order. Accepts media ids or generation (workflow) ids. Appends by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| index | No | ||
| scene_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Flow project id (from flow_list_projects). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering, default append behavior, and that IDs may be media or generation workflow IDs, but it does not state permissions, reversibility, effects on existing clips, or what happens on conflicts.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The core operation and key defaults are presented immediately.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, only 25% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits index semantics, permission requirements, and return or failure behavior, leaving the agent with gaps before invocation.
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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the critical 'ids' parameter by saying it accepts media IDs or generation workflow IDs, but leaves the 'index' parameter largely unexplained beyond an implied append-by-default behavior.
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: placing videos on a scene timeline, in order. It also names the accepted ID types and default append behavior, making the tool's purpose clear without needing to open the schema.
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent detail is 'Appends by default,' which is behavioral rather than a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.