Retrieves primary storyline clips with refs, timing, source media, effects, volume, and connected items, optionally limited to a start/end time range.
Clips in the primary storyline with refs, times, source media, effects, volume and their connected items (B-roll, titles, audio). Optionally only those overlapping start..end seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No |
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 discloses the scope ('primary storyline') and the data returned, including connected items, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid ranges, or any pagination/output format details.
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 compact sentences with no wasted words. The primary data scope is front-loaded and the optional range filter follows 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 read-only timeline inspection tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it enumerates the returned clip data and explains the optional range filter. It could do slightly more on output shape and range semantics, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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%, so the description has to compensate for the two parameters. It clarifies that start and end are seconds and define an overlap filter, but it does not specify inclusive/exclusive boundary behavior, null/default handling, or whether both must be supplied.
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 identifies the resource and contents precisely: clips in the primary storyline with refs, times, source media, effects, volume, and connected items. It is clear enough to distinguish a timeline-inspection tool from edit/mutation tools, though it never explicitly says 'retrieve/list' and does not contrast itself with open_timeline.
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 only usage guidance is the optional start..end overlap filter, which implies how to narrow results. It does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as open_timeline, validate_timeline, or list_markers, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.