Inspect and manage VEGAS Pro project media, bins, image sequences, and event takes. Add, remove, or replace media with guarded operations and Undo safety.
Inspect and manage project media, bins, image sequences, event takes, and guarded media replacement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0-beta.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely fails to. 'Guarded media replacement' hints that replacement is constrained, but the description never says whether 'remove_take' or 'replace_event_media' are destructive or reversible, what permissions are needed, or how failures surface.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, covering the resource scope efficiently. For a nine-action polymorphic tool it is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.
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?
This is a multi-action tool with a freeform 'params' object, no parameter documentation, and no output schema, so the description is the only place that could explain each action's inputs and effects. It does not, leaving an agent unable to invoke any action beyond 'inspect' or 'list' confidently.
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%: the 'action' enum values have no per-action descriptions and 'params' is a freeform object with additionalProperties and no documented shape. The description names resources (bins, image sequences, event takes) that loosely map to four of the nine actions, but leaves the params contract for each action completely unexplained.
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 specific verbs ('inspect and manage') over a clearly named resource domain ('project media, bins, image sequences, event takes'), which is enough to separate it from sibling domains like timeline, audio, and effects. The word 'manage' is broad, but the enumerated resources pin the scope down well.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as vegas_timeline or vegas_project, and no indication of which of the nine actions to pick for a given intent. The agent must infer everything from the enum values alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.