Lists clips in timeline order for a specific track or all tracks when track_id is omitted, enabling podcast producers to inspect and organize multitrack project timelines.
List clips in timeline order for one track or all tracks when track_id is omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_id | No | ||
| project_path | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does add the useful ordering guarantee and the default all-tracks behavior. It is silent on prerequisites (must a project be loaded?), what happens with an unknown track_id, and roughly what the listing contains; project_path is never addressed at all.
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; the scope rule is attached to the same statement rather than padded into a second paragraph. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
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, and the one behavioral rule is stated. The gap is project_path and any project-context prerequisite, which an agent needs in order to call this correctly in a session-based editor.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify track_id semantics (omit to list all tracks) and is consistent with its default of null, but project_path gets no explanation whatsoever, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.
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 and resource ('List clips') plus the ordering semantics ('in timeline order'), which an agent can act on immediately. It does not name any sibling to distinguish itself from, but the surrounding siblings are almost all mutating commands, so the read-only listing intent is unambiguous.
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?
It gives one conditional rule ('for one track or all tracks when track_id is omitted'), which is genuinely useful scoping guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus other listing/query tools in the family (e.g., list_social_clips_tool, list_applied_edits_tool, list_edit_decisions_tool), so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.