proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

broll_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available b-roll clips with synopses and durations, plus timeline shot positions with narration, so you can choose which clip goes under each sentence.

Instructions

The whole b-roll question as data: what there is, and what it goes under.

Returns the footage catalogue with each clip's synopsis and duration, then every shot position on the timeline with the narration that plays over it, how long it is held, and what is currently there. card: true positions are shown for rhythm and are not choices.

This is the half proofcut can do. Choosing is the other half, and it belongs to you: read the brief, decide which clip goes under which sentence, and write the answers back with cue_add, where the picture plan checks each one. Ranking the catalogue by text similarity was measured and does not work — the sentence that earns a clip routinely shares no word with any description of it.

missing_synopsis is the thing to fix first. A clip with no synopsis is invisible to any reasoning about the catalogue, so it will simply never be chosen.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fps`	No	The frame grid the shot positions are projected on. Defaults to the rate `export` would use.
`path`	No	The project directory to act on. Omit it — the usual case — when this server is bound to a project (started as `proofcut -C DIR mcp`, or inside a project; `ping` says which): it then resolves to that one bound project, a relative path resolves against it, and a path outside it is refused by name. Unbound, `path` is the whole address and omitting it refuses rather than guessing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / fps / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / fps / description

Added value: +"The frame grid the shot positions are projected on. Defaults to the rate `export` would use."

removedInput schema / properties / fps / title
```
Removed value: -"Fps"
```

addedInput schema / properties / fps / type

Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]

removedInput schema / properties / path / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / path / description

Added value: +"The project directory to act on. Omit it — the usual case — when this server is bound to a project (started as `proofcut -C DIR mcp`, or inside a project; `ping` says which): it then resolves to that one bound project, a relative path resolves against it, and a path outside it is refused by name. Unbound, `path` is the whole address and omitting it refuses rather than guessing."

removedInput schema / properties / path / title
```
Removed value: -"Path"
```

addedInput schema / properties / path / type

Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]

removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"broll_briefArguments"
```

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: it explains that `card: true` positions are shown for rhythm and are not choices, that ranking by text similarity was measured and does not work, and that `missing_synopsis` clips will never be chosen. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs to interpret the output correctly, and they do not contradict any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the workflow, and closes with a priority instruction. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, though the opening line ('The whole b-roll question as data...') is somewhat poetic and less concrete than the rest. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, but slightly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but flagged as present), and the description explains exactly what the output contains: clip synopsis, duration, shot positions, narration, hold length, current content, and card positions. It also explains how to act on that output via `cue_add`, and what to fix first. For a read-only briefing tool, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for `fps` and `path`. It focuses on the output and usage context, not the parameters, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear statement of what the tool returns: the footage catalogue with clip synopsis and duration, plus shot positions with narration, hold duration, and current content. It explicitly notes that `card: true` positions are shown for rhythm and are not choices, which distinguishes this read-only briefing tool from the write-oriented `cue_add` sibling. The verb 'Returns' and the specific resource make the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage direction: it states this is the half that reads the brief, and that choosing belongs to the user via `cue_add`. It also warns that ranking by text similarity does not work, guiding the agent away from a common but flawed heuristic, and instructs to fix `missing_synopsis` first because such clips are invisible to reasoning. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server