Generates an image of the storyline's main clip at a specified time, ignoring titles, effects, and B-roll, so you can check what is on screen at a cut.
Image of the storyline's main clip at a time (ignores titles/effects/B-roll), for checking what's on screen at a cut.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | Yes | ||
| width | 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 and discloses important behavior: it returns an image of the main clip, is scoped to a specific time, and ignores titles/effects/B-roll. It does not explicitly discuss side effects or permissions, but the output and filtering behavior are clearly stated.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted text. The key output and scoping behavior are front-loaded before the parenthetical clarification.
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 simple two-parameter preview tool, the description covers the core purpose and output scope adequately. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, it leaves important invocation details such as time encoding and width behavior unspecified.
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 needs to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references the time parameter via "at a time" and does not explain the time format, nor does it mention the width parameter at all.
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 output and scope: an image of the storyline's main clip at a given time. It also distinguishes this from a full render by explicitly noting that it ignores titles/effects/B-roll, though it does not name sibling tools.
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 phrase "for checking what's on screen at a cut" gives a clear intended use case. It does not provide explicit exclusions or compare against alternatives such as render_preview or fcp_screenshot, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.