Changes how a project item's footage is interpreted by assigning a new frame rate, useful when clips play too fast, slow, or out of sync.
Interpret footage at a different frame rate
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nodeId | Yes | Project item nodeId (from get_project_items / find_project_items) | |
| frameRate | Yes |
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 burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether this modifies metadata only or the underlying media, whether it requires the item to be unedited in a sequence, or whether it is reversible. 'Interpret footage' hints at a metadata-level, non-destructive change but that is inference, not disclosure.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity is appropriate in form, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently informative.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without scope (footage vs sequence), side effects, or outcome information. It is enough to guess intent but not enough to invoke 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 coverage is 50%: nodeId is well documented in the schema as a project item nodeId, and frameRate is a positive number whose meaning is self-evident. The description adds no syntax, units, or valid-range detail beyond 'a different frame rate', so it neither hurts nor meaningfully compensates.
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 action — reinterpreting footage at a different frame rate — which is meaningfully distinct from speed-change siblings like set_clip_speed and from set_override_pixel_aspect_ratio. It stops short of saying that the target is a project-item node, so the linkage to the nodeId parameter is left implicit.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Critically, it never distinguishes interpreting footage (metadata-only retime) from retiming clips via set_clip_speed, which is the most likely source of a wrong tool choice for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.