Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
resolve-mcp

resolve-mcp

by irstone-source
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

timeline_import

Create a timeline from AAF, EDL, XML, FCPXML, DRT, ADL, or OTIO files. Import source clips and set timeline name and path.

Instructions

Create a timeline from an AAF, EDL, XML, FCPXML, DRT, ADL or OTIO file.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "timeline_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
timeline_nameNo
source_clips_pathNo
import_source_clipsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description states that a timeline is created from a file but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it overwrites existing timelines, error handling, file size limits, required permissions, or the effect on the current project. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence of 14 words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices important details, so it is not perfect.

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?

With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits context such as the tool's role within the application (e.g., creating a timeline in the current project), return behavior, and parameter explanations, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters. It only mentions file types relevant to file_path but does not clarify the parameter syntax, default behavior, or the role of timeline_name, source_clips_path, or import_source_clips.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'timeline', and lists supported file formats (AAF, EDL, XML, etc.), making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishing it from siblings like timeline_create (which creates an empty 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media_import or clip_replace. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools