Skip to main content
Glama
tydude001

proofcut

by tydude001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

shot_sheet

DestructiveIdempotent

Generate a visual contact sheet of every shot in the edit, one labeled tile per shot, to review the current picture track and spot problems before rendering.

Instructions

Look at the picture track — one labelled tile per shot, as an image.

This is the tool to call to see what the film looks like — the picture track of the edit as it stands. Its neighbours answer different questions with the same kind of picture: footage_sheet browses one registered clip's own material, contact_sheet looks at a clip's first ten seconds, and reframe_sheet reviews framing windows a page at a time. All four hand the bytes back, because an agent confined to proofcut's tools (the agent panel's --tools ToolSearch) can open no path at all.

One tile per shot, at the exact source second that shot reads from, four across and about two dozen a page — the measured ceiling before vision downscales the sheet and takes the labels with it. Each tile is labelled asset t=<timeline second>s src=<source second>s, and page walks a longer film.

asset on a row is the footage; clip_id is the transcript the cue is addressed against, which on a voiceover project is the VO and not anything you can see. Read asset.

Drawn from the same projection export renders, so a plan that refuses comes back as shots_error with no sheet rather than a picture of a film that will not render.

What you see here is a hypothesis, not a check. Nothing downstream reads a verdict formed off this sheet — confirm one with an op that measures (check_frames, verify, black, reframe_coverage).

out is the one thing here that writes where you say: the montage lands at that path, replacing whatever file is there. Without it a page is written into the project's own sheet cache, which nothing reads back as authored state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outNoWrite the image to this path as well, replacing whatever file is there. Unset, it goes to the project's own sheet cache and only the bytes come back.
pageNoWhich page of rows to draw, from 1. Unset, the first.
pathNoThe 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.
per_pageNoRows per page. `null` draws the whole project in one montage, which returns a path rather than readable bytes — for a person to open, not for an agent to read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed13 schema fields changedv0.25.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / out / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / out / description
      Added value: +"Write the image to this path as well, replacing whatever file is there. Unset, it goes to the project's own sheet cache and only the bytes come back."
    • removedInput schema / properties / out / title
      Removed value: -"Out"
    • addedInput schema / properties / out / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / page / description
      Added value: +"Which page of rows to draw, from 1. Unset, the first."
    • removedInput schema / properties / page / title
      Removed value: -"Page"
    • 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"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / per_page / description
      Added value: +"Rows per page. `null` draws the whole project in one montage, which returns a path rather than readable bytes — for a person to open, not for an agent to read."
    • removedInput schema / properties / per_page / title
      Removed value: -"Per Page"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"shot_sheetArguments"
  2. First observedv0.24.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`. The description goes beyond these flags by detailing the destructive case: 'the montage lands at that path, replacing whatever file is there.' It also discloses that all four sibling tools 'hand the bytes back' and that the sheet is a hypothesis ('What you see here is a hypothesis, not a check'), plus explains rendering failure behavior (`shots_error`). No contradiction with annotations.

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-organized, opening with the core purpose, then differentiating siblings, then diving into tile mechanics, labels, rendering pitfalls, and parameter notes. Every section adds necessary context; it is not padded. It could be slightly tightened (e.g., merging some repeated mentions of 'four' and 'two dozen'), but the structure supports comprehension.

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?

For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and complex behavioral nuances (destructive write, rendering failure, hypothesis status, page navigation, asset-vs-clip distinction), the description covers all critical aspects. It explains what the agent will receive (bytes, or a path if `per_page` is null), how to handle the output, and warns against using it as a verdict. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning. For `out`, it clarifies it writes and replaces a file; for `page`, it says 'walks a longer film'; for `per_page`, it explains that `null` returns a path for a person, not an agent; for `path`, it covers project binding behavior and refusal cases. This extra context makes the parameters safer and clearer to use.

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: 'Look at the picture track — one labelled tile per shot, as an image.' It names the resource (picture track of the edit) and the action (look at). It then explicitly differentiates from siblings (`footage_sheet`, `contact_sheet`, `reframe_sheet`) by describing what each neighbor does instead, leaving no ambiguity about this tool's unique role.

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?

It states 'This is the tool to call to see what the film looks like' and contrasts with siblings: 'footage_sheet browses one registered clip's own material, contact_sheet looks at a clip's first ten seconds, and reframe_sheet reviews framing windows a page at a time.' It also warns this is a hypothesis, not a verification, and points to measurement tools (`check_frames`, `verify`, `black`, `reframe_coverage`) for confirmation. This gives explicit when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools