Agentic CMS

create_video_project

Create and save video projects with clips, background music, metadata, and orientation settings, so agents can manage video content in a CMS backend.

Instructions

Create or save a video project.

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": "create_video_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Project name
`clips`	No	Array of clip objects
`bgmClips`	No	Array of BGM clip objects
`clipMeta`	No	Clip metadata map
`orientation`	No	Video orientation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet says nothing about permissions, whether repeated calls duplicate projects, what 'save' implies for an existing project, or what the call returns. The nested clip structures are never explained either.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but the 'create or save' hedge introduces ambiguity rather than economy. It is under-specified more than it is concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with five parameters including nested clip and metadata objects, no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. Nothing explains the shape or role of clips/bgmClips/clipMeta or what a successful creation yields.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema (name, clips, bgmClips, clipMeta, orientation with enum). The description adds no additional meaning, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('create...a video project') and is distinguishable from list_video_projects and get_video_project. However, the paired verb 'or save' muddies whether this creates a new project or persists an existing one, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as link_video_project_to_variant or update-style siblings. The agent must infer the workflow context on its own.

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

Deploy Server