DaVinci Resolve MCP Server

resolve_create_timeline

Creates a new empty timeline in DaVinci Resolve using a specified name. Use this to start a fresh editing sequence for video projects.

Instructions

Create a new empty timeline.

Args: name: Name for the new timeline.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_create_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that a timeline is created, but does not disclose whether an open project is required, whether the new timeline becomes the current timeline, or what side effects creation has beyond the creation itself.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The Args block is minimal and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter creation tool with an output schema, this is minimally adequate: the agent knows what to call and what argument to pass. But the missing project prerequisite and post-creation state (e.g., whether the timeline becomes current) leave meaningful gaps, especially with no annotations to fill them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The Args section documents the single parameter as 'Name for the new timeline,' adding slight context beyond the schema's bare 'Name' title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not compensate with constraints like uniqueness, allowed format, or relationship to the current project.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new empty timeline.' The qualifier 'empty' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like resolve_duplicate_timeline and resolve_append_to_timeline.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With many timeline-related siblings, the agent gets no criteria for choosing this tool instead of duplicate_timeline, append_to_timeline, or create_project.

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

Deploy Server