losslesscut-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List actions

list_actions

Read-only

Lists LosslessCut keyboard actions accepted by run_action, grouped by category and optionally filtered by group, so you can find the correct action name before triggering an edit.

Instructions

Lists the LosslessCut keyboard actions that run_action accepts, grouped by category.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are categorized and that the set is bounded to actions run_action accepts, but says nothing about whether the group parameter filters or narrows results, or how the categories are returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (these are the actions run_action accepts) is front-loaded ahead of the grouping detail. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-enum-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how it is organized, which is close to sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any statement about what the group filter does.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, so nothing is added beyond the schema. The ten enum values are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but the definition does not explain that group acts as a category filter or whether omitting it returns everything.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence uses a specific verb ("Lists") plus a precisely scoped resource ("LosslessCut keyboard actions that run_action accepts"), and it also states the output organization ("grouped by category"). Naming run_action makes the list-vs-execute relationship with that sibling immediately clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The link to run_action implies the use case — discover an action name before invoking it — but the description never says when to call this versus just calling run_action directly, nor does it mention prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.