Set project parameters such as timeline frame rate or resolution by supplying the setting name and value.
Set a project setting.
Args: setting: Setting name (e.g., "timelineFrameRate", "timelineResolutionWidth"). value: Value to set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| setting | 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Set a project setting' without disclosing whether the operation overwrites existing values, requires specific permissions, is reversible, or returns anything. The mutation behavior is implied but not explained.
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 brief and efficient, stating the purpose in the first line and following with parameter details. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous text.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks context such as the full list of valid settings, reference to the getter for discovery, or any note about project-specific behavior. An agent would need to guess or consult elsewhere to use it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does provide example setting names and identifies each parameter's role, adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not enumerate possible settings or value formats, so it only partially compensates.
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 states the action ('Set') and the resource ('a project setting'), with a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from the sibling getter implicitly through the action verb, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_get_project_settings. The context implies this is the setter while the sibling is the getter, but the description does not state this or any prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.