Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CapCut MCP Server

CapCut MCP Server

by bchenner
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capcut_create_draft

Create a new vertical (9:16) or landscape CapCut project draft on disk, saving it to your local CapCut projects folder for editing and export.

Instructions

Create a new vertical (9:16) or landscape CapCut project draft on disk. Draft will be created in %LOCALAPPDATA%\CapCut\User Data\Projects\com.lveditor.draft.

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": {
      "draft_name": "<draft_name>"
    },
    "name": "capcut_create_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fpsNo
widthNo
heightNo
draft_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 usefully discloses that the draft is created on disk and gives the exact path, but it does not state whether existing drafts are overwritten, what permissions are required, or any other side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a useful storage-location detail. No wasted words and easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter creation tool: it omits parameter meanings and key behavioral details such as overwrite behavior or CapCut environment requirements.

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% for 4 parameters. The description only indirectly hints at width/height through 'vertical (9:16) or landscape' but does not explain draft_name, fps, width, or height, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (CapCut project draft) plus orientation options (vertical 9:16 or landscape). Clear purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like capcut_clone_and_revoice or capcut_assemble_ugc_video.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Implies usage by saying it creates a new draft, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to use instead. No exclusions or routing to sibling tools are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools