Cutible MCP Server

create_project

Initialize a new Timeline-as-Data project, specifying frame rate, resolution, and prompt for headless video editing.

Instructions

Start a new Timeline-as-Data 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`fps`	No
`width`	No
`height`	No
`prompt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start,' without revealing whether the project is persisted, whether an existing id is overwritten, what defaults are applied, or what side effects occur. For a creation tool, these are central behavioral details.

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?

The description is a single sentence and is front-loaded with the action and resource, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified rather than information-dense; it reads more like a label than a functional specification.

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 a setup tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is inadequate. The description does not explain the required id, the meaning of the optional parameters, default behavior, or how this tool fits into the broader Timeline-as-Data workflow.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the five parameters. An agent cannot infer that id is a required identifier, what fps/width/height control, or how prompt is used. The description adds no semantic value for 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 states a concrete verb ('Start') and a specific resource ('new Timeline-as-Data project'), making the core purpose clear. The word 'new' helps distinguish it from load_project/save_project, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like load_project or save_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, project lifecycle, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The only usage signal is the word 'new,' which is implied rather than explicit.

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