GMA2 MCP

set_step_timing

Configure step timing with snap percentage, fade times, and fade path for selected chases.

Instructions

Set step/chase timing parameters for the current selection.

Provide any subset (at least one required).

Args:
    snap_percent: Snap percentage (hard-cut portion)
    step_fade: Step fade time
    step_in_fade: Step in-fade time
    step_out_fade: Step out-fade time
    fade_path: Fade path / curve value

Returns:
    str: Operation result message

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": "set_step_timing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`snap_percent`	No
`step_fade`	No
`step_in_fade`	No
`step_out_fade`	No
`fade_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return type but does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond parameter semantics.

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?

The description is concise with a clear structure: purpose statement, usage note, parameter list, return type. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no required params, and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks context such as typical values, effect on system, and scope of 'current selection'. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter (e.g., 'snap_percent: Snap percentage (hard-cut portion)'). This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, though units and ranges are missing.

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?

The description clearly states it sets step/chase timing parameters for the current selection. It specifies the verb 'Set' and the resource 'step/chase timing parameters', but does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_cue_timing or set_effect_speed.

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 description provides a usage guideline: 'Provide any subset (at least one required).' However, it does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server