build_scenesCompile segments + assets + voiceover into the editor/render timeline (scenes). Run after segment assets are complete, before export. Returns a receipt — {scene_count, scenes: [{scene_id, segment_number, duration_frames, status, layer_count}]}; composition detail via list_scenes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context about the required pipeline stage and the returned receipt, but it does not explain what a rerun does to existing scenes or what destructive effects to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and information-dense: the action is front-loaded, the pipeline position is stated, and the return shape is summarized without filler. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the action, when to run it, what it returns, and where to get more detail. The destructive safety hint is supplied by annotations, and the output receipt is described inline, so nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter, project_id, and the schema description fully covers it: 'Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects'. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the concrete action: compiling segments, assets, and voiceover into the editor/render timeline (scenes). It also anchors the tool in the pipeline ('after segment assets are complete, before export'), which distinguishes it from later export or inspection siblings like export_video and list_scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit timing guidance: run after segment assets are complete and before export. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the pipeline positioning plus the pointer to list_scenes for composition detail provides sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool families overlap in purpose, such as await_jobs/get_workflow_status/get_pipeline_progress, update_segment_content/update_segment_prompts, director_note/project_director_note, and scan_script/rescan_voice_blocks. The descriptions do a good job distinguishing them, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection, and there are more than a couple of confusable pairs.
The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun snake_case convention with clear prefixes like get_, list_, set_, update_, create_, and delete_. Minor exceptions such as director_note, project_director_note, browse_audio_library, and whoami keep it from being perfectly consistent.
At 72 tools, this is far beyond the 50+ extreme range and creates a heavy navigation burden for an agent. Even though the pipeline is complex, this many tools is not well-scoped for an MCP surface.
The surface covers the full script-to-export pipeline: styles, assets, voices, storyboards, segments, scenes, and rendering all have substantial lifecycle support. Some gaps exist—no delete_channel, delete_segment, delete_voice_block, or delete_provider_key—but most missing operations can be worked around through existing tools.