Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tegas AI

by ai.tegas
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Write a scenario

tegas_write_scenario

Free (requires an active plan). Tessa writes a complete video scenario from an idea in one call, without asking questions. duration_sec 5..60, aspect 9:16 | 16:9 | 1:1. reference_urls: public image URLs of a product/character (or reference_id ref_...), optional. Returns scenario_id (valid for a few days), the scenario text, episodes with per-episode durations, warnings and the actual duration_sec (may differ from the requested one). Typical flow: tegas_write_scenario -> (optional) tegas_find_heroes / tegas_draw_heroes -> tegas_start_video with confirm=false to get the price -> user consent -> confirm=true -> tegas_wait_video. Keep the returned duration_sec: pass it to tegas_start_video for the quote. Show the scenario text to the user; call again with a refined idea if they want changes.

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": {
      "idea": "<idea>"
    },
    "name": "tegas_write_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ideaYes
aspectNo9:16
categoryNo
languageNoru
duration_secNo
reference_urlsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / language / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "ru",
-  "en",
-  "es",
-  "fr",
-  "de"
-]New value: +[
+  "ru",
+  "en",
+  "es",
+  "fr",
+  "de",
+  "tr"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable context: free but requires an active plan, no clarifying questions asked, scenario_id valid for a few days, warnings returned, actual duration may differ from requested. It could mention rate limits or credit consumption, but the safety profile is well covered by annotations.

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?

Front-loads purpose and cost, then constraints, returns, flow, and usage tips. Every sentence is relevant, though the description is dense and could be slightly tightened.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values needn't be fully explained, but the description usefully summarizes key returns. Given 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the missing details for category, language, and idea format are notable gaps. Overall, it provides enough context to invoke correctly for the main flow.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents duration_sec range (5..60), aspect options, and reference_urls meaning, but completely omits category, language, and what 'idea' should contain. It also doesn't clarify that reference_urls is an array or how reference_id differs from URLs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Tessa writes a complete video scenario from an idea in one call'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like tegas_start_video or tegas_edit_video by focusing on scenario generation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use with a typical flow (write_scenario → find/draw heroes → start_video with confirm=false → consent → confirm=true → wait), notes that it's free but requires an active plan, and instructs to show the scenario and re-call with refined idea for changes.

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

All Tegas AI toolsInspect
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