Retrieve full details for a single timeline clip—timing, linked clips, and applied effects—by specifying track type, track index, and clip index.
Full details of one clip: timing, linked clips, applied effects
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index on the track, 0-based from the left (see get_timeline_clips) | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index, 0-based (V1 = 0, A1 = 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the categories of data returned (timing, linked clips, applied effects), which is useful read-operation context, but it does not state whether an active sequence/project is required, error behavior for invalid indices, or return shape.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted prose. It puts the core purpose and the returned content areas immediately in view.
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 read tool with no output schema, listing the main returned data categories is helpful but incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'full details' includes beyond the three named areas, nor how it relates to focused sibling getters that also retrieve clip effects or transform data.
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 100%, with all three parameters documented, including the enum for trackType. The description adds only the singular 'one clip' framing and does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Full details of one clip') and names the content areas it returns: timing, linked clips, and applied effects. That is clear enough to distinguish it from broad clip-list tools, though it doesn't explicitly separate it from focused siblings like get_clip_effects or get_clip_transform.
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?
It implies usage for retrieving details of a single clip, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent reading sibling names like get_clip_effects or get_timeline_clips gets no routing help from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.