Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arkeonix CapCut MCP

Arkeonix CapCut MCP

by daviilpzDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

capcut_read_timeline

Retrieve a CapCut draft's full timeline: canvas, fps, tracks, and every segment's id, media, times, and layer. Read-only access for inspection.

Instructions

Read a draft: canvas, fps, tracks and every segment (id, media, times, layer). Read-only.

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>"
    },
    "name": "capcut_read_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety disclosure burden and does so with an explicit 'Read-only' statement. It also adds useful behavioral/return detail by listing what will be returned. It does not cover error cases or payload size, but these are less critical for a simple read operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main content is front-loaded in the first sentence, and 'Read-only' reinforces the safety profile without wasting words.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives a useful summary of the return content. However, it omits explanation of the 'draft' parameter format and does not fully compensate for the absent output schema and parameter documentation.

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?

The single 'draft' parameter has zero schema coverage, and the description does not explain whether it should be a draft ID, name, path, or other identifier. It merely repeats 'draft' from the parameter name, leaving the agent to infer the expected format.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb (Read) and resource (draft), and enumerates the contents: canvas, fps, tracks, and every segment with id, media, times, and layer. The read-only qualifier distinguishes it from the many mutating sibling tools.

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 implies use when the agent needs to inspect a draft's full timeline without modifying it, reinforced by 'Read-only.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like capcut_list_drafts or capcut_inspect_edit, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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