Select shots in a timeline by track and item, optionally scoped to a project or sequence, so agents can target specific clips for inspection or editing.
Select shots in the timeline. items: [{"track": 0, "item": "shot010", "kind": "video"}].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| sequence | 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 declare this is a non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful item-shape detail, but it omits the key behavioral question for a "set" operation: whether the new selection replaces or augments the existing selection, and whether the sequence/project defaults to the active one.
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 sentences, nothing wasted, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the example. The inline JSON example is dense but earns its space given the opaque items schema.
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 needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is material for a mutation tool: selection-replacement semantics and the role of the nullable project/sequence scoping parameters.
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 coverage is 0% and the items array is an untyped object bag, so the inline example ({"track": 0, "item": "shot010", "kind": "video"}) is genuinely compensating for the most important parameter. However, the project and sequence parameters receive no explanation at all, leaving half the surface undocumented in both schema and prose.
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?
"Select shots in the timeline" gives a specific verb plus resource, so an agent knows the operation immediately. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_selection (the natural inverse), which keeps it from a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of get_selection as the read counterpart, and no stated prerequisite that a project/sequence must be open. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.