Reel-E

Suggest a direction

suggest_direction

Read-onlyIdempotent

Takes a wish about how the video feels or looks rather than a named edit: slow, boring, flat, more energy, like TikTok or Reels, too fast, too busy, calmer, more luxury, make it pop, or a look missing from the photos (dusk, a night shot, a season, a Just Listed sign, a reveal). It reads the edit style, the song's BPM, energy and drop, how often the video cuts, which shots are exteriors and the credits left, and returns a plan: what can be done now at no credit (undoable), what needs the person's yes (a VFX or photo edit with its cost, or library tracks with their BPM to hear first), or a short question to ask. Uses no credit.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "listingId": "<listingId>",
      "wish": "<wish>"
    },
    "name": "suggest_direction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wish`	Yes	The person's words, as they wrote them.
`photoId`	No	The shot the person named or is looking at, when the wish is about one shot. The plan then stays on that shot.
`listingId`	Yes	Listing id from list_listings.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: 'Uses no credit' is stated explicitly, and the plan's three outcome classes (free/undoable, needs-yes with a VFX or photo-edit cost, or a clarifying question) tell the agent this tool may return a question instead of an action. That is valuable behavior disclosure beyond the annotations, though the plan structure partly overlaps the output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The critical contrast (feeling vs named edit) is front-loaded in the first clause and the cost statement closes the description, so the structure is sound. The long example enumeration is dense but each example earns its place by widening the trigger vocabulary, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With only 3 parameters, an output schema present, and full annotations, the description needs to cover purpose, cost, and outcome shape — and it does all three. The only thin spot is that it doesn't state scope or limits (e.g. per-listing vs per-shot behavior beyond photoId), which is minor given the structured fields.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning to 'wish' — it must be the person's felt description, not a named edit, and may reference a style like TikTok or a missing look — but it says nothing new about listingId and only implicitly reinforces photoId's single-shot scoping.

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 states a specific verb+resource (takes a 'wish' and returns a 'plan') and immediately distinguishes itself from the named-edit siblings by contrasting feeling-based input ('slow, boring, flat, more energy, like TikTok') with 'a named edit'. An agent can tell this apart from set_pace, set_edit_style, or apply_effect without opening any schema.

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 clearly signals the input condition that selects this tool — vague, feel-based requests such as 'make it pop' or 'calmer' — and lists concrete trigger phrasings including look-gaps (dusk, night shot, Just Listed sign). It stops short of naming the alternative tools to call when the user does name a specific edit (e.g. set_pace), so the routing is strong but not fully closed.

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

All Reel-E tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?