Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
capcut-mcp

capcut-mcp

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

capcut_type

Types text into a specified numbered field on the current CapCut page, enabling agents to fill form inputs during CapCut automation workflows.

Instructions

Type text into a numbered field on the current CapCut page.

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": {
      "element": "<element>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "capcut_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to type.
elementYesField number from the last read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether typing replaces or appends to existing content, whether the field must be focused first, whether any submit/commit action is triggered, or what happens if the element number is stale.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral detail rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

For a UI-automation input tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still needs to know the sequencing requirement, replace-vs-append semantics, and failure behavior for invalid element numbers. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented ('Text to type' and 'Field number from the last read'). The description adds only the notion of a numbered field on the current page, which the schema already conveys, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: "Type text into a numbered field on the current CapCut page." That distinguishes it from siblings like capcut_click and capcut_read, which operate on the page differently, though the description never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema note "Field number from the last read" hints that capcut_read must run first, but the description itself gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which another sibling (e.g. capcut_click) would be preferred.

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