Set in and out points on the active sequence to define an export range. Use seconds for each point, or pass -1 to clear the in or out point.
Set in and out points on the active sequence (for export range, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inPoint | No | In point in seconds (-1 to clear) | |
| outPoint | No | Out point in seconds (-1 to clear) |
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 says the tool sets points on the active sequence, but does not disclose prerequisites such as an active sequence needing to exist, whether setting one point affects the other, or what is returned.
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 redundant or wasted material. It states the action and target 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?
For a simple two-parameter setter, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the target sequence and a likely use case. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain active-sequence prerequisites and side effects.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including seconds and the '-1 to clear' convention. The description only restates the concept of in/out points, so baseline 3 is 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: setting in/out points on the active sequence. The 'active sequence' scope helps distinguish it from clip-level or project-item-level in/out tools, though it does not explicitly name the relevant siblings such as clear_sequence_in_out.
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 parenthetical 'for export range, etc.' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus clear_sequence_in_out, set_clip_in_out, set_project_item_in_out, or set_work_area. It gives an example but stops short of routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.