FilmoraMCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

filmora_edit

Destructive

Edit selected Filmora timeline clips with actions like split, trim, cut, copy, delete, group, mute, and freeze frames; check selection and playhead first, then verify the result.

Instructions

Edit selected timeline clips; inspect selection and playhead first, then verify the result.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "filmora_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`repeat`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that a selection must exist and that results should be verified, but it does not disclose what specific actions destroy (delete, ripple_delete, cut) or how undo/redo interact with the timeline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler, keeping the core action and prerequisite first. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which is a smaller sin than verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A 17-action destructive mutation tool with no output schema, no per-action documentation, and no explanation of repeat demands far more description than one line. An agent cannot tell which actions need a selection, which are reversible, or what the return looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. The 17-value action enum is largely self-describing, but semantics such as ripple_delete vs close_gap vs cut, and the meaning of the repeat parameter, are left entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb (edit) and resource (selected timeline clips), which tells the agent what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as filmora_command, filmora_commands, or filmora_ui_action, which could plausibly also mutate clips.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a real workflow constraint: inspect selection and playhead first, then verify the result, effectively giving a precondition and postcondition. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it versus filmora_command/filmora_ui_action.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.