losslesscut-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run action

run_action

Destructive

Execute one LosslessCut keyboard action by name from allowed list_actions entries; dialog-group actions open a dialog the user must complete in the app.

Instructions

Runs one LosslessCut keyboard action by name, for example "togglePlayResetSpeed", "splitCurrentSegment" or "toggleStripAudio". Only actions from list_actions are allowed. Actions in the "dialog" group open a dialog the user must complete in the app.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "run_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation risk is known; the description adds real value with the list_actions validation rule and the dialog-group side effect. However, it never says which actions are destructive or what happens when an invalid or unavailable action is passed, and it does not say the action applies to the currently open file/selection.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, examples inline, and the two constraints (allowed values, dialog behavior) placed after the core statement. No wasted wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage, the essentials are present, but a complete definition would say that actions apply to current app state and how invalid/unavailable actions fail — the agent is left to infer both.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single `action` parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden; it partially compensates by giving three example values and the list_actions constraint, but it supplies no naming convention, no enum, and no handling of the 64-character bound, so an agent still has to call list_actions to know valid values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Runs one LosslessCut keyboard action by name") and backs it with three concrete action-name examples, so an agent can distinguish it from list_actions (discovery) and from the segment/export siblings (which operate on data rather than performing UI actions).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly constrains input to actions returned by list_actions and warns that "dialog"-group actions open a user-completed dialog. That is a clear use condition plus a sibling pointer, though it does not state exclusions (e.g. actions it will refuse) beyond the dialog caveat.

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