Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arkeonix CapCut MCP

Arkeonix CapCut MCP

by daviilpzDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

capcut_clone_draft

Duplicate a CapCut draft folder under a new name. Set empty to true to clear clips and tracks for a blank project.

Instructions

Copy a draft folder to a new name (valid scaffolding). empty:true clears all clips/tracks for a fresh build.

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": {
      "base": "<base>",
      "newName": "<newName>"
    },
    "name": "capcut_clone_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYes
emptyNo
newNameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of side effects. It explicitly warns that empty:true clears all clips/tracks, which is the key behavioral risk. It also implies the base draft is left intact by calling the operation a copy.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the purpose and the critical parameter behavior with no filler. The operation is front-loaded before the parameter detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter clone tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it explains the operation, the scaffolding use, and the destructive option. It stops short of specifying what an omitted empty value means or details about naming, but those are inferable from context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully: base is the draft folder being copied, newName is the destination name, and empty is defined as clearing all clips/tracks. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States exactly what the tool does: copies a draft folder to a new name. The verb and resource are specific, and this operation is distinct from the sibling tools that modify, read, or add content to a draft.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description frames the tool as 'valid scaffolding' and explains that empty:true is 'for a fresh build', giving clear use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident.

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