Retrieve applied edits within a timeline window, filtered by project or track, to inspect edit history and verify changes in a podcast multitrack project.
List applied edits in a timeline window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_id | No | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| timeline_end | No | ||
| timeline_start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, what happens when track_id/project_path are left null, whether results are paginated or capped, or how the window bounds behave when omitted.
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 with no filler; scope comes first. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so the brevity itself is not a structural fault.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no routing guidance, the description is well short of what an agent needs to invoke this correctly among ~140 siblings.
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 0% for four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Timeline window' loosely gestures at timeline_start/timeline_end, but track_id, project_path, their null defaults, and their interaction are entirely unexplained.
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 ('List') and resource ('applied edits') plus a scoping dimension ('timeline window'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_edit_decisions_tool or list_clips_tool, leaving the agent to guess which list to call.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent listing tools (list_edit_decisions_tool, list_clips_tool, edit_impact_report_tool). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.