agent-video-engine

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project_import_legacy

Import a local legacy .aive project into a new headless project, preserving its source transcript and explicit cuts without altering the original project or footage.

Instructions

Import an existing local legacy .aive project into a new headless project, preserving its source transcript and explicit cuts. Does not change the source project or footage.

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": {
      "projectDir": "<projectDir>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "project_import_legacy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`path`	Yes
`projectDir`	Yes	Absolute path of the local video project directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations by clarifying that the source project and footage are untouched while a new headless project is produced — useful reassurance for a write tool. It stops short of covering failure modes, such as what happens if the destination already exists or whether the import is transactional.

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?

Two short sentences, action and non-destructive guarantee front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and source safety but leaves the return value, destination semantics, and two of three parameters unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 only 33%: only projectDir is documented, while 'path' and 'name' carry no schema description. The description could have clarified that 'path' is the legacy .aive file and 'name' the new project's name, but it says nothing about any parameter, leaving two of three ambiguous.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Import an existing local legacy .aive project into a new headless project') and names the preserved artifacts (source transcript, explicit cuts). It implicitly distinguishes itself from project_create and project_open_bundle by scoping it to legacy .aive imports, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 phrase 'legacy .aive project' scopes when this tool applies, and the tool list implies it is the migration path versus project_open_bundle or project_create. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for agents choosing between importing an existing project and creating one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.