Create a copy of a timeline clip and place it at a specified time, optionally on another track, to reuse edits without rebuilding them.
Duplicate a clip on the timeline
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| targetTime | Yes | Where to place the duplicate (in seconds) | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index | |
| targetTrackIndex | No | Target track index (same track if omitted) |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'duplicate a clip' and omits whether the source remains unchanged, what happens to existing clips at targetTime, and whether a target track is required or optional.
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 states the core action and scope 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?
This is a mutating timeline operation with five parameters and no annotations or output schema. The schema fully covers parameter semantics, but the description is too sparse to explain side effects, overwrite behavior, or placement semantics for a duplication tool.
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 the input schema already documents clipIndex, trackType, trackIndex, targetTime, and targetTrackIndex. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which makes the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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: 'Duplicate a clip on the timeline.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as create_sub_clip, clone_sequence, or move_clip_to_track.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. 'On the timeline' implies the domain, but an agent gets no help deciding between this tool and related clip/sequence creation or move tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.