proofcut

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

timeline_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report current timeline state: duration, segment count, undo depth, and seeded status. Call first to assess project readiness and avoid errors.

Instructions

Report the current timeline: duration, segment count, undo depth.

head/tail echo the cold open / finishing pass set with the head/ tail tools, or null for either with none. expected_frames/ expected_duration are what export would lay down — timeline_duration alone stays the Edit's own length even with a head or a tail configured, since the Edit never grows to describe either bookend.

This is the tool to call first, to see what state a project is in — a fresh or un-seeded project answers seeded: false with the clip list rather than refusing (TRIAL.md § timeline_status is the first call an agent makes and it refuses on a fresh project).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.25.0Sep 16, 2026

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: -"timeline_statusArguments"

First observedv0.24.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: head/tail echo semantics, expected_frames/expected_duration versus timeline_duration, and seeded:false behavior. However, the parenthetical 'it refuses on a fresh project' contradicts the earlier 'rather than refusing', creating ambiguity.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the head/tail and expected_duration details are substantive. The final TRIAL.md parenthetical is tangential and internally confusing, which prevents full marks for conciseness.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists and the description explains subtle return-value semantics and edge cases around head/tail, export, and seeded projects. The contradictory sentence about refusing on a fresh project leaves one behavioral area ambiguous, so completeness is slightly diminished.

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?

The single path parameter is fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage, including default and binding behavior, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It also does not repeat parameter semantics, matching the baseline expectation.

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?

States a specific verb 'Report' and resource 'current timeline', and enumerates concrete outputs: duration, segment count, undo depth. The scope is unambiguous and clearly differentiates this from state-mutating siblings like seed_timeline or cut tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly identifies this as 'the tool to call first, to see what state a project is in' and explains the fresh/unseeded project behavior. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like timeline_view or properties, so exclusions are absent, but the primary usage context is clear.

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

Deploy Server