resolve-ai-bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_fusion

Lists a clip's Fusion nodes, connections, and bridge effect chain before MediaOut. Use it to verify connections after applying a Fusion effect without modifying the composition.

Instructions

Read-only: list a clip's Fusion nodes, their connections, and the bridge effect chain before MediaOut.

Use after a Fusion effect to confirm what is connected. Never creates or changes a composition.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "inspect_fusion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	No		playhead
`track_index`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.13.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states 'Read-only' and 'Never creates or changes a composition,' which covers the critical safety profile an agent needs. It does not add further behavioral context (e.g., auth, performance), so it falls short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only safety note and the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the safety sentence slightly repeats the opening 'Read-only' label.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics is a significant gap for a tool that requires an item_id and optional track_index to be useful. The description covers purpose, usage, and safety adequately but is incomplete on invocation details.

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%, and the description does not name or explain the two parameters (item_id, track_index). It only implies a 'clip' is involved, which is a vague hint but fails to add any concrete parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and names the exact resources returned: Fusion nodes, their connections, and the bridge effect chain before MediaOut. It is distinct from any sibling tool, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use after a Fusion effect to confirm what is connected.' No exclusions or alternative tools are named, which would be needed for a 5.

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