filmcraft-edit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_project

Creates a new FilmCraft project file with one empty sequence and opens it in the connected app when available, so later edits update live.

Instructions

Create a new FilmCraft project file with one empty sequence. When connected to the app (connect_app), it also opens there so later edits show live.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fps`	No
`name`	No	Project and sequence name	Untitled
`path`	Yes	Where to write the .fcproj file
`width`	No
`height`	No
`audioTracks`	No
`videoTracks`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare that this mutates state and is not open-world. The description adds real behavioral value: the file is written to disk and will also open in the connected app so subsequent edits appear live. It does not address what happens if the path already exists or what happens without an app connection.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: the primary action first, the conditional side effect second. No filler and nothing beyond what an agent needs.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the app-connection side effect but is silent on the five undocumented numeric parameters and on failure or overwrite behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 29%: name and path are documented in the schema, but fps, width, height, audioTracks and videoTracks carry no descriptions anywhere. The description says nothing about these parameters, so their meaning must be guessed from names alone.

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 and resource: 'Create a new FilmCraft project file with one empty sequence'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like inspect_project or save_project. It stops just short of naming those alternatives explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated. The parenthetical reference to connect_app explains a dependency but does not say when to call this versus saving or opening an existing project, nor any preconditions such as whether the target path must not already exist.

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