Launchscene

Storyboard a plan

storyboard

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lay a plan out as a storyboard before anything is built: one panel per shot with its number, role, timing, your on-screen text, camera and transition, and the key frame of its reference scene. Returns the panels as data and, when images are on, one storyboard sheet image (the first 16 shots). Frames are references for framing and rhythm, never generated or the final render. Takes the plan from plan_from_references or plan_structure as is.

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": {
      "plan": "<plan>"
    },
    "name": "storyboard"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan`	Yes
`title`	No
`images`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`schema_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: it returns both panel data and, when images are enabled, a storyboard sheet image limited to the first 16 shots, and it clarifies that frames are references rather than generated final renders.

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 description is front-loaded and reasonably compact, with the core action, output behavior, and input source stated efficiently. A few details could be tightened, but there is little wasted wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is complex: it has a nested plan object, three top-level parameters, and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage context, and some return behavior, but with 0% schema description coverage it does not explain enough of the nested parameter semantics to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It mentions some plan fields (text, camera, transition, reference scene) and the images flag, but it leaves title undocumented and does not cover many nested fields such as bpm, voice, aspect, palette, duration_ms, and reference_scene_id.

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 a specific verb and resource: it lays out a plan as a storyboard, panel per shot, before building. It explicitly identifies its input source (plan_from_references or plan_structure), which distinguishes it from sibling planning and critique tools.

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 states when to use this tool: before anything is built, using a plan from plan_from_references or plan_structure as is. It does not name when not to use it or compare against alternatives like critique_plan, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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

All Launchscene 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?