Add a render job to Kdenlive's export queue with output path, preset, and optional in/out points.
Add job to render queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | No | ||
| in_point | No | ||
| out_point | No | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does 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, but it only says 'Add job' without explaining side effects, whether rendering begins immediately, whether existing queue entries are affected, or what happens on failure. The mutating nature of the tool is implied but not detailed.
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 with no filler or redundant wording. It is concise, though arguably too sparse for a four-parameter tool; that limitation is better attributed to completeness than to structure.
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 has four parameters and no annotations, but the description only states the broad operation. Required parameter semantics, optional in/out point behavior, preset handling, and side effects are all missing, and the presence of an output schema does not compensate for that gap.
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%, and the description adds no meaning for output_path, preset, in_point, or out_point. The agent must rely only on bare names and types, with no explanation of units, allowed values, or relationships between parameters.
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 uses a specific action verb ('Add') and a clear target resource ('render queue'), and it is not a tautology. It broadly differentiates this tool from queue-management siblings like render_queue_start and render_queue_list, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_render or render_queue_start. Any usage inference must come from the tool name and sibling list rather than from the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.