Cutible MCP Server

checkpoint

Capture a snapshot of your current video editing state to save progress or create a restoration point, allowing you to revert changes or compare versions later.

Instructions

Snapshot current state.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "checkpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

D1.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the snapshot is a read-only operation or creates a persistent save point, whether it affects other state, or what the response contains. The lack of any behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to convey essential information, so the brevity is a detriment rather than an asset. There is no wasted text, but the content is insufficient.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For such a simple tool with many siblings and no annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, effect, or when to use it, leaving the agent unable to decide if this is the right tool or how to call it correctly.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'label' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not clarify what 'label' represents or how it is used. The agent has to guess whether the label is a name for the checkpoint, a tag, or something else, with no help from the tool description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Snapshot current state' is a vague and tautological restatement of the tool name 'checkpoint' with no clear verb, resource, or scope. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling tools, leaving the agent unsure of what state is captured and why.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_project', 'undo', or 'load_project'. There is no context, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites, making the tool's role in the workflow unclear.

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