Lists transitions on the active sequence's tracks, optionally filtered by video or audio track type and index, to inspect edit points.
Transitions on the active sequence's tracks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trackType | No | Track type | |
| trackIndex | No | 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 does not state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if no sequence is active, whether results are paginated, or what the return shape is. The name 'get' weakly implies retrieval, but the description adds almost no behavioral context.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It lacks a clear verb and omits structural elements like return value or usage conditions.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. It only states a scope and leaves key context missing for an agent to call it 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.
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 names the resource ('Transitions') and scope ('active sequence's tracks'), but it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb. It does not distinguish this from related retrieval tools like get_effects_list or get_clip_effects, leaving the purpose only partially 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The description only implies a scope (active sequence tracks) but gives no usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.