Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arkeonix CapCut MCP

Arkeonix CapCut MCP

by daviilpzDev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

capcut_split_segment

Divide a CapCut timeline segment into two clips at a specified second, allowing precise edits to specific parts of a draft project.

Instructions

Split a segment into two at a timeline time.

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_split_segment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atSecYes
draftYes
segmentIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool mutates the timeline by splitting a segment, but it does not mention side effects, whether the operation is destructive to the original segment, whether the draft needs saving, or what happens to segment IDs.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core action is immediately clear.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what a successful split returns, whether the draft is modified immediately, or how the parameters relate to the operation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and this description only hints that 'atSec' refers to a timeline time. It does not clarify the roles of 'draft' and 'segmentId', nor does it specify units or accepted formats beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Split a segment into two at a timeline time.' It clearly communicates the operation and distinguishes it from related tools like capcut_trim_segment, which adjusts endpoints rather than creating two segments.

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 a segment needs to be divided at a specific time—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as trim, move, or delete, nor does it state when not to use it.

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