Duplicate a scene with its clips to create a new scene directly below and select it. Use this to copy an entire scene arrangement for editing or variation.
Duplicate a scene (index or name) with its clips into a new scene right below it, and select it. Returns the new scene; later scene indices shift by one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns the new scene, it selects the new scene, and — importantly — later scene indices shift by one, which is a non-obvious side effect an agent must account for.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return/side-effect note. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the parameter form, the return value, and the index-shift side effect. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does so for the single `scene` param by stating it accepts an index or a name, which the schema's bare anyOf integer/string does not convey in words.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb+resource with full scope: duplicates a scene including its clips, places it directly below, and selects it. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_scene (which would not copy clips) and duplicate_clip/duplicate_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage is clear from the copy-and-place semantics, but the description never states when to prefer this over create_scene or fire_scene, and names no alternatives. Adequate context with no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.