project_stitchCombine final-rendered clips into a single MP4 file for a project, optionally selecting specific scenes and setting the output filename.
Stitch final-rendered clips into one MP4.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene_ids | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| output_name | No | final.mp4 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| stderr | No | ||
| stdout | No | ||
| reencoded | No | ||
| scene_ids | No | ||
| size_bytes | No | ||
| export_path | No | ||
| duration_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the output is an MP4 but says nothing about overwrite behavior, clip ordering, authorization requirements, duration/rate expectations, or what happens when scene_ids is null.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, with the verb and resulting artifact stated immediately. Its brevity is efficient, though it comes at the cost of missing operational detail rather than being verbose.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, and several overlapping sibling tools, the description is too thin to let an agent call this correctly without guessing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters. It does not explain that scene_ids selects which clips to stitch, that project_id identifies the project, or that output_name controls the resulting filename.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Stitch') and concrete resource ('final-rendered clips into one MP4'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as project_build, project_export, or scene_render_final, leaving the agent to infer which composition tool applies.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many nearby render/build/export siblings. There are no stated preconditions, such as whether clips must already be final-rendered or whether a prior scene_render_final call is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.