Skip to main content
Glama

Morpha

set_embed_origins

Replace the project's embed allowlist — the hostnames permitted to load this project through the public embed. Pass the full desired list; it overwrites the previous one. An empty array turns embedding OFF (the public embed endpoint 404s the project). Each entry is normalized to a bare lowercased hostname (scheme, port, and path stripped, e.g. "https://example.com/x" → "example.com"); duplicates are dropped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originsYesFull desired allowlist. Each entry may be a bare hostname or a URL; it is normalized to a bare lowercased hostname. Empty array disables embedding.
projectIdYesOpaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden and meets it: it discloses overwrite semantics, the disabling effect of an empty array, case normalization, scheme/port/path stripping, and duplicate removal. This is strong behavioral detail beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose, full-list behavior, empty-array behavior, and normalization rules. No redundant restatement of schema fields or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: the agent knows what to pass, what happens on call, and both important edge cases. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers both parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining normalization mechanics, duplicate dropping, and the effect of an empty array, going beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Replace') and resource (the project's embed allowlist) and clearly defines what the allowlist controls. It is immediately distinguishable from incremental sibling tools like add_embed_origin and remove_embed_origin because it emphasizes full-list replacement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says the caller must pass the full desired list and that the call overwrites the previous allowlist, and it gives guidance for the empty-array edge case. It does not explicitly name add_embed_origin/remove_embed_origin as alternatives for incremental edits, but that distinction is inferable from the described overwrite behavior.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.

Tool Count2/5

95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.

Resources