filmcraft-edit

by kanishk-gangwar

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

split_clip

Cuts video clips at a specified timeline time, either on a chosen track or clip, or across every track at that time.

Instructions

Razor: cut clips at a timeline time (on one track or clip, else on every track at that time).

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": {
      "time": "<time>"
    },
    "name": "split_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`clip`	No	Timeline clip id (from list_timeline)
`time`	Yes	Cut time, in seconds
`track`	No
`project`	No	Path to the .fcproj project file; omit to edit the FilmCraft app connected with connect_app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations mark this as a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds that the scope can widen to all tracks when no clip or track is supplied, which is a real behavioral warning. It doesn't say whether the split is non-destructive, what happens to markers/effects at the cut point, or whether it can be undone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording; the scope rule is placed where it is read first. The "Razor:" label is slightly jargon-y but compact.

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 mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and scoping but omits return/result behavior (e.g., what the resulting clip ids are) and the effect of the split on existing transitions or markers.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 75%, with clip, time, and project already documented. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: the default behavior when track/clip is omitted (cut every track at that time), which is the key semantic for these parameters.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("cut clips at a timeline time") and even clarifies the scope semantics of the operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with trim_clip, but an agent can still identify the operation as a split rather than a trim.

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?

The parenthetical explains scoping behavior: if a track or clip is given, the cut applies there; otherwise it applies to every track at that time. That implies usage but never states when to prefer this over trim_clip or how to choose between passing clip, track, or neither.

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