Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arkeonix CapCut MCP

Arkeonix CapCut MCP

by daviilpzDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

capcut_save

Save current CapCut project edits to disk with automatic backup and validation. Use force option to save while CapCut is open.

Instructions

Write session edits to disk (backs up .mcpbak, validates). Refuses if CapCut is open unless force:true.

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_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftYes
forceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals key behaviors: writing to disk, backing up .mcpbak, validating, and refusing when CapCut is open unless force is set. This goes well beyond the schema, though it doesn't clarify failure behavior or return values.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by behavioral caveats. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core action, backup, validation, and the force guardrail, which is adequate for a simple save operation. Clear gaps remain: the meaning of the required 'draft' parameter and expected return or error behavior. Given no annotations or output schema, these gaps matter.

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 explains force behavior well: 'Refuses if CapCut is open unless force:true'. However, the required 'draft' parameter is never described, leaving the agent uncertain whether it is an ID, path, or draft name.

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?

Description states a specific action and resource: 'Write session edits to disk'. It adds distinguishing details like backing up .mcpbak and validating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings such as capcut_discard or capcut_validate, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool: when session edits should be persisted to disk. It also provides one concrete condition: refuses if CapCut is open unless force:true. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like capcut_discard or capcut_validate.

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