Creates proxy media for a project item to optimize editing performance. Specify the item's nodeId and a proxy preset (.epr) to generate lighter files for smoother playback.
Create proxy media for a project item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | The nodeId of the project item | |
| presetPath | Yes | Path to proxy preset (.epr) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says "Create proxy media" and does not disclose what happens if proxy media already exists, where proxies are stored, whether the operation overwrites files, or what permissions/processes are involved for this mutation.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool whose schema already documents the inputs.
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?
Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for a mutation tool. It omits key operational context such as whether existing proxies are replaced, expected time or side effects, and how success or failure is reported.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description implies the nodeId refers to a project item but adds no meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource: "Create proxy media for a project item." This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings like attach_proxy or toggle_proxy_mode.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attach_proxy or toggle_proxy_mode. The description gives no prerequisites, context, or exclusions for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.