Extracts the active sequence's in-to-out range into a new subsequence, with an option to include all tracks regardless of track targeting.
Create a subsequence from the in/out range of the active sequence
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ignoreTrackTargeting | No | If true, include all tracks regardless of targeting (default: false) |
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 disclosure burden. It says a subsequence is created but not whether this mutates the project, where the result appears (project panel vs. timeline), whether the source sequence is affected, or what happens when no in/out range is defined — significant gaps for a creation tool.
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?
One short sentence with the scope information front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently written, though the terseness contributes to the missing prerequisites noted elsewhere.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the key prerequisite (an active sequence with in/out points) and what the created subsequence is, which an agent would need to invoke 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?
There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains ignoreTrackTargeting fully. The description adds nothing about it, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Create a subsequence") plus the source of the range ("in/out range of the active sequence"), which is meaningful scope information. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like create_sub_clip, nest_clips, or clone_sequence, so an agent must infer the difference.
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?
Usage is only implied: it presupposes an active sequence with in/out points already set, but never says so explicitly, nor what to do if no range exists. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the agent to compare against create_sub_clip and nest_clips on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.