Open a specific DaVinci Resolve timeline using its unique ID, exact name, or one-based index from list_timelines to start working on the desired project sequence.
Open a timeline by unique ID, exact name or one-based index from list_timelines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| timeline_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says 'open' without explaining whether the tool changes the active timeline, has side effects, or fails on invalid identifiers. The one-based index detail is a useful behavioral nuance, but the overall side-effect profile is absent.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element—the action, the addressing modes, and the source list—earns its place and directly supports invocation.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. Still, the description leaves open how identifier parameters should be selected or combined, and what 'open' does behaviorally in a suite with timeline_overview and preview_timeline. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds real meaning by mapping 'unique ID', 'exact name', and 'one-based index' to the three parameters and grounding index in list_timelines. However, it does not state whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, which one takes precedence if multiple are provided, or whether at least one must be supplied despite all being optional in the schema.
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?
The description clearly identifies the action as 'Open a timeline' and specifies three addressing modes: unique ID, exact name, or one-based index. This distinguishes it from list_timelines and create_timeline, though it does not contrast it with sibling tools like timeline_overview or preview_timeline, leaving the exact meaning of 'open' somewhat under-specified.
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?
The phrase 'from list_timelines' implies a prerequisite workflow and grounds the identifier values, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as timeline_overview or preview_timeline. It also gives no exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.