Inspect and edit VEGAS Pro timeline events with guarded actions: examine first, then modify existing events using IDs and expected timing to avoid accidental changes.
Perform guarded timeline inspection and editing. Inspect first. Existing-event mutations require event_id, expected_start_seconds, expected_length_seconds, and exact project_path.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine, non-obvious behavioral trait: existing-event mutations are guarded by expected_start_seconds/expected_length_seconds (optimistic concurrency) and require an exact project_path. It says nothing about what gets destroyed, return values, or failure behavior for the many destructive actions like delete_event or ripple_delete.
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?
Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the guard requirements. Efficient, though 'guarded' could have been replaced with concrete language at no cost to length.
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?
For a 34-action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an untyped params object, the description is far too thin. It omits the action taxonomy, what 'inspect' returns, and batch semantics, leaving an agent unable to invoke most actions correctly from the definition alone.
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 'params' is an untyped free-form object, so the description must compensate. It names four required fields for existing-event mutations, which is useful, but leaves the parameter shape of the other 33 actions (inspect, insert_media, add_marker, batch, etc.) entirely undocumented.
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 a specific verb and resource ('timeline inspection and editing'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like vegas_project, vegas_media, and vegas_effects. The word 'guarded' is undefined jargon, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
'Inspect first' gives a sequencing hint for the inspect-before-mutate workflow, and the mutation guard conditions act as prerequisites. However, it never routes the agent among the 34 actions or explains when to use this tool versus a sibling such as vegas_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.