capcut-mcp

capcut_status

Verify your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and CapCut connection before exporting drafts, adding captions, or using other CapCut actions.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and CapCut are ready: account, credits and CapCut connection.

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": "capcut_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is checked (account, credits, CapCut connection), but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are needed, or how the result should be interpreted.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently names the three readiness components the tool checks.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool, the description is adequate in naming what is checked. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what the result looks like or how readiness versus failure should be interpreted, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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 states a specific verb, "Check," and specific resources: the Cotlet.dev account, credits, and CapCut connection. It clearly indicates a readiness/status tool rather than an action tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like capcut_open or capcut_guide.

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 phrase "Check that ... are ready" implies a preflight or diagnostic use before attempting CapCut actions. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over 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