Retrieves all clips on the active sequence timeline, including their properties, and can filter results by track type or specific track index.
Get all clips on the active sequence timeline with their properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackType | No | Filter by track type (default: all) | |
| trackIndex | No | Filter by specific track index (-1 for all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation scoped to the active sequence timeline and that clip properties are returned, but it says nothing about prerequisites (e.g., an active sequence must exist), error behavior, or whether hidden/locked tracks are included.
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 of about eleven words with zero filler. Every element (verb, resource, scope, returned properties) earns its place.
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 read tool this covers the core operation, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the shape of the returned clip properties or edge cases. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 trackType and trackIndex are already fully documented with defaults and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all clips on the active sequence timeline') plus what is returned ('their properties'). It implicitly distinguishes from get_clip_info (single clip) by saying 'all clips' on the active sequence, but never names a sibling or explicitly scopes against get_selection or get_clip_info.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_clip_info, get_selection, or get_track_info. The purpose sentence implies the basic use case, but an agent gets no help choosing this tool over related retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.