Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arkeonix CapCut MCP

Arkeonix CapCut MCP

by daviilpzDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

capcut_move_segment

Move a CapCut draft segment to a new start time, with optional track reassignment, using segment ID and timestamp.

Instructions

Move a segment to a new start time and optionally another track.

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": {
      "draft": "<draft>",
      "segmentId": "<segmentId>",
      "atSec": "<atSec>"
    },
    "name": "capcut_move_segment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atSecYes
draftYes
segmentIdYes
trackIndexNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core move action but does not mention side effects, constraints on trackIndex, behavior with linked segments, overlap handling, or whether changes are staged until a save/discard step.

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 filler. It immediately states the action and the optional modifier, making it easy to scan.

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 mutating tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is incomplete. An agent still lacks critical calling context: parameter semantics for half the parameters, track-index behavior, return value expectations, and how this fits into the save/discard workflow.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely clarifies atSec as 'start time' and trackIndex as 'another track', while leaving draft and segmentId entirely unexplained. Units for atSec, default trackIndex behavior, and how to obtain IDs are absent.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('move') and resource ('segment'), and clearly states the two dimensions of the operation: a new start time and an optional track change. This distinguishes it from sibling segment operations like delete, trim, split, or align.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as capcut_trim_segment, capcut_align_linked_segments, or capcut_split_segment. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided, so an agent must infer usage solely from the operation name.

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