Import video or audio files into the active DaVinci Resolve media pool folder and return a media ID for each clip, enabling further editing operations.
Import files into the current media pool folder. Returns media_id for each clip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that files are imported into the current media pool folder and that media_id values are returned, which is useful. It does not mention duplicate handling, unsupported file types, or side effects beyond the import, though the action itself is straightforwardly additive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the return value is mentioned separately and clearly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter import tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the target (current media pool folder) and the return value. Missing context includes what happens if a path is invalid, whether duplicates are skipped, and any media-format restrictions. An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be fully described, but operational edge cases are still absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only the parameter name 'paths' with a string-array type and no description; coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that these are files to be imported and that each produces a media_id for the corresponding clip, which gives practical meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Import'), a clear resource ('files into the current media pool folder'), and a concrete outcome ('Returns media_id for each clip'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which concern timeline placement, clip color, markers, and metadata operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the core use case: importing files into the current media pool folder. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an open project or an available media pool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.