Retrieve all keyframes for a specific effect property on a selected clip by specifying track type, track index, clip index, effect index, and property name.
Get all keyframes for a specific effect property
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index | |
| effectIndex | Yes | Effect/component index | |
| propertyName | Yes | Property display name |
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 burden, and it discloses almost no behavior. It does not say what a keyframe record contains (time, value, interpolation), what is returned when the property has no keyframes (empty list vs. error), or whether interpolation data is included — all critical for a tool with no output schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier ("for a specific effect property") arrives at the end of a very short sentence. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than tight.
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 five-required-parameter lookup that walks the track/clip/effect/property index chain, with no annotations and no output schema. The description should explain the shape of the returned keyframe data and the empty case; it does neither, leaving the agent guessing about the result.
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 all five required parameters (trackType, trackIndex, clipIndex, effectIndex, propertyName) are documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning, such as whether propertyName must match the display name exactly or whether indices are zero-based.
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?
States a specific verb and resource with a clear scope: "Get all keyframes for a specific effect property." This implicitly separates it from the mutation siblings (add_keyframe, remove_keyframe, set_keyframe_interpolation) and from get_effect_property, but it never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.
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 versus add_keyframe, set_keyframe_interpolation, get_effect_property, or add_audio_keyframe. The read-only intent is only inferable from the verb "get," so the agent gets no stated context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.