Set the playhead to a target timecode in DaVinci Resolve to jump directly to that frame for precise editing or review.
Set the playhead to a specific timecode.
Args: timecode: Timecode string (e.g., "01:00:05:00").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timecode | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that the playhead is set, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior for invalid timecodes, reversibility, or whether a timeline must be open. For a state-changing action this is a notable gap.
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 tight and front-loaded: one sentence states the action, and the argument documentation adds only a useful example. No filler or redundant content.
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 setter with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits operational prerequisites such as needing a loaded timeline, which is relevant in the Resolve tool family. The example helps, yet the agent must infer the required working state.
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?
The description enriches the single parameter by providing an explicit example format, '01:00:05:00', which goes beyond the schema's bare string type. It clarifies the expected timecode shape, though it does not explain frame-rate dependence or validation rules.
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 opens with 'Set the playhead to a specific timecode,' which names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('playhead'). This clearly distinguishes it from read-style siblings like resolve_get_playhead and from marker tools like resolve_add_marker_at_playhead.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. It does not mention that a project or timeline must be loaded, nor does it point to resolve_get_playhead as the read counterpart; the agent must infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.