framesail

Combine segments

combine_segments

Destructive

Merge a segment with an adjacent one (segment numbers must be neighbors). keep: "this" | "other" — whose creative data survives: its assets are kept (rendered frame/clip marked stale against the combined narration and its prompts re-derived); the other segment's assets are deleted. Later segments renumber — re-check get_segments before further edits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keep`	No	Whose creative data survives the merge: "this" (segment_number) or "other" (with_segment_number)	this
`dry_run`	No	True previews the consequences without changing anything
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects
`segment_number`	Yes	1-based segment number, as reported by get_segments
`with_segment_number`	Yes	1-based number of the adjacent segment to merge with (must neighbor segment_number)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructiveHint=true, but the description goes much further: the other segment's assets are deleted, kept assets are marked stale, prompts are re-derived, and later segments renumber. This gives an agent concrete, actionable expectations about side effects.

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 with no filler. The action and adjacency constraint are front-loaded, and the remaining detail about asset survival, deletion, and renumbering is dense but relevant.

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?

The description covers the destructive consequences, renumbering behavior, and the need to re-fetch segments afterward. It does not state return values or whether the operation is asynchronous, and there is no output schema, but the essential call-time information is present.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the meaning of the 'keep' parameter beyond the schema by explaining that kept assets remain while the other segment's assets are deleted. It does not add format-level detail for IDs or segment numbers, but the schema already covers those adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Merge a segment with an adjacent one') and adds a precise constraint ('segment numbers must be neighbors'). This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from segment-related siblings like split_segment.

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 gives explicit preconditions ('segment numbers must be neighbors') and a clear follow-up instruction ('re-check get_segments before further edits'). It does not explicitly name alternatives for non-neighbor cases or contrast with split_segment, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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

All framesail 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?