Cutible MCP Server

trim

Refine a video clip by adjusting its source in and out points to define the exact segment to use.

Instructions

Adjust a clip's source in/out.

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": {
      "clip_id": "<clip_id>"
    },
    "name": "trim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`src_in`	No
`clip_id`	Yes
`src_out`	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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether trimming is destructive, reversible, or how it affects the clip's timeline position. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters. It lacks structure and does not front-load any critical information beyond the basic action.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context on parameter semantics, usage scenarios, or expected behavior, leaving the agent with almost no guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter explanations. However, it makes no mention of src_in, src_out, or clip_id, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 specific verb 'adjust' and a resource 'a clip's source in/out', which is distinct from sibling tools like split or move. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'source in/out' means, but the action is clear enough.

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 trim versus alternatives like split or ripple_delete. The description only states what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice.

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