Creates a sequence in a bin with a chosen format, framerate, track counts, and frame-based start timecode to organize project media for editing.
Create a sequence in a bin. format is a name from list_formats; timecode_start is in frames.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| format | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| bin_path | No | ||
| framerate | No | ||
| audio_tracks | No | ||
| video_tracks | No | ||
| timecode_start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the sequence is placed in a bin and that timecode is expressed in frames, but says nothing about whether the bin must already exist, what happens with default track counts, or whether an open project is required.
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, and the core action is front-loaded before the parameter clarifications. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why the remaining parameters go unexplained.
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?
The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap. But for an 8-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, two sentences explaining two parameters leave an agent unable to set project, bin_path, framerate or track counts with confidence.
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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains only 2 of 8 parameters: `format` (a name from list_formats) and `timecode_start` (frames). `project`, `bin_path`, `framerate`, `audio_tracks`, `video_tracks` and even `name` get no clarification, leaving the agent to guess at units, defaults and interactions.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Create a sequence in a bin") and even names the destination container, which distinguishes it from get_sequence, list_sequences and update_sequence in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent infers this is the creation step before update_sequence or add_track, but no when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite (open project? existing bin?) is stated. The pointer to list_formats for valid `format` values is the one genuinely useful routing hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.