Cannon Studio

Recommend Cannon Studio Workflow

recommend_workflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recommend a Cannon Studio workflow for a stated creative or developer goal. Public read-only: no auth, no state changes, no charges; use this for planning, not to create generation jobs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	Yes	User's desired outcome or problem to solve, such as producing UGC ads, planning a short film, generating 3D assets, or automating API media generation.
`audience`	No	Optional user or organization type, such as solo creator, agency, brand team, developer, filmmaker, or enterprise team.
`team_size`	No	Optional team context, such as solo, small team, agency team, or enterprise team; used to bias collaboration and review recommendations.
`output_type`	No	Optional final output target, such as image, video, ad, trailer, 3D model, 3D location, audio, subtitles, or API integration.
`budget_sensitivity`	No	Optional cost posture, such as low, medium, high, cost-sensitive, or speed-prioritized; used to frame pricing and iteration tradeoffs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	Yes
`steps`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`recommendation`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: 'no auth, no state changes, no charges.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand safety and side-effect profile, especially since openWorldHint=false adds nuance. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds safety and usage constraints. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the presence of a full output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, safety, and usage boundary. It is complete without needing to explain return values, which are handled by the output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all five parameters well-described in the schema. The description itself only mentions 'stated creative or developer goal' for the goal parameter, adding minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Recommend' with the resource 'Cannon Studio workflow' and targets a 'stated creative or developer goal,' clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_generation_request and estimate_generation_cost. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly states 'use this for planning, not to create generation jobs,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the exclusion is strong enough to guide selection. It also notes 'Public read-only' as situational context.

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

All Cannon Studio tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: status, comparison, creation, estimation, fetching, API docs, checkout, generation polling, model availability, pricing, capabilities, offerings, toolkits, workflow recommendation, and knowledge search. Even the get_* and list_* tools have clear, non-overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_generation_request, list_offerings, get_checkout_link), but there are exceptions: api_status is a noun, and fetch and search are single verbs without an object. The mix of get/list/compare/recommend/search/fetch is readable but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools is at the upper bound of the well-scoped range, but each tool serves a clear, distinct purpose in the Cannon Studio domain—from estimation and creation to knowledge retrieval and workflow recommendation. No tool feels redundant or superfluous.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers creation, estimation, polling, knowledge, and commercial operations, but the generation lifecycle is incomplete: there is no update, cancel, or list tool for generation requests, and the create tool explicitly cannot be cancelled through MCP. This is a notable gap for agents managing ongoing work.

Resources

Need Help?