Retrieves all transitions on the current Kdenlive timeline.
List all transitions on the timeline.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "transition_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention side effects, empty-timeline behavior, ordering, or failure modes. Since there is an output schema, some return-shape burden is relieved, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious list intent.
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 details. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope.
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 parameterless list operation with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and scope. A small gap is that it does not explicitly state which timeline is targeted, but 'the timeline' implies the active/current timeline, which is likely sufficient given the sibling tool set.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is complete and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 ('List') and resource ('all transitions on the timeline'), making the core purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from timeline-level tools like timeline_list and from transition manipulation tools like transition_add or transition_remove, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'use transition_add to create transitions' or 'use timeline_list to list timelines.' The usage is implied by the name and description, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routes are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.