clipform_list_assetsList available creative assets (sound effects, animations, fonts) for video compositions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Asset type to list (default: all) | all |
| context | Yes | Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sfx | Yes | ||
| fonts | Yes | ||
| animations | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / contextAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "context"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "animations": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "fonts": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "weights": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "number"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "sfx": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "description": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "path": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "sfx",
+ "animations",
+ "fonts"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a small amount of context by specifying 'available' and 'for video compositions', but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, authentication needs, or filtering behavior beyond the asset categories.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately lists the relevant categories. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 simple read-only list operation with well-described parameters and strong annotations, the description is essentially complete. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, but that is not critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.
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?
Both parameters are fully documented in the schema: 'type' has an enum, default, and description, and 'context' has a clear instruction. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('available creative assets'), names the asset categories (sound effects, animations, fonts), and scopes them to video compositions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_compositions, list_forms, and list_video_templates.
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?
The description provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_media, search_music, or list_video_templates. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: form CRUD, node management, media upload/attach, rendering, search, and guidance retrieval are all separable. The main overlap is among the three render tools (clipform_generate_video, clipform_render_video_template, clipform_render_composition), but their descriptions include explicit disambiguation guidance, so an agent can correctly choose. clipform_get_guide and clipform_get_workflow are also similar but clearly differentiated.
Tool names follow a consistent clipform_<verb>_<noun> pattern throughout, e.g., clipform_create_form, clipform_add_node, clipform_update_node, clipform_delete_node. Minor deviations exist: clipform_whoami is not verb_noun, and get_more_tools lacks the clipform_ prefix, but these are edge cases and the overall convention is highly predictable.
34 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server. The server covers a broad domain (form creation, node editing, media management, video rendering, TTS, search, guidance, imports, responses), so the count is defensible, but it is above the typical well-scoped range and may add navigation overhead.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: create/read/update/delete forms and nodes, media upload/attach/delete, multiple render paths with status checking, TTS generation, music/image/video search, form import, response retrieval, and workflow/guide knowledge. The main gap is lack of a direct branching-logic editor (option-based branching is only in the dashboard), but the API consciously documents that limitation and the rest of the lifecycle is complete.