framesail

Create asset

create_asset

Manually add a character/environment/object the scan missed. asset_type: "character" | "environment" | "object". The description is the generation-facing spec of its look — be specific.

The scan reads narration and `[SCENE: ...]` directions, so the common
miss is anyone NEITHER ever names — a host the video needs but no text
mentions, a recurring set the script only implies. Name the asset exactly
as the script or directions will refer to it so the storyboard binds the
two, then generate_asset_reference it like any scanned asset.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Asset name as the script refers to it (e.g. the character's name)
`asset_type`	Yes	Kind of asset: "character", "environment", or "object"
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects
`description`	No	Generation-facing spec of the asset's look; every shot renders from it, so be specific

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

All annotations are false, providing no positive safety profile, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful context: the description parameter is a generation-facing spec rendered into shots, the name binds storyboard to script, and created assets behave like scanned assets in the pipeline. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on duplicate names or how creation interacts with existing assets of the same name, and since idempotentHint=false, the agent gets no warning against double-creation.

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 core purpose and key parameter guidance are front-loaded in the first sentence. The second paragraph is somewhat elaborate with examples (host, recurring set) but each clause earns its place by clarifying the failure mode and the naming requirement. No filler, though the examples could be 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?

For a 4-parameter create tool with no output schema and no enums, the description covers the purpose, the scenario that warrants manual creation, the critical naming constraint, and the next pipeline step. Minor gaps: no indication of what the tool returns after creation and no guidance on handling duplicate names. Overall, an agent can successfully invoke it from this description alone.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the naming semantics in depth (exactly as the script/directions refer to it, so the storyboard binds the two) and by reinforcing that description must be a specific, generation-facing look spec. The asset_type values are restated, which adds little, but the naming rule is genuinely non-obvious guidance the schema lacks.

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?

"Manually add a character/environment/object the scan missed" states a specific verb (manually add), a concrete resource (character/environment/object assets), and the precise scope (things the scan missed). This clearly differentiates it from the automatic scan_script flow and from sibling tools like update_asset, delete_asset, and list_assets.

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 clear when-to-use context: the scan reads narration and [SCENE] directions, so the common miss is anything neither ever names — a host, a recurring set. It also supplies naming guidance (use the script's exact reference so the storyboard binds) and a follow-up step (generate_asset_reference it). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like 'if the asset already exists, use update_asset instead,' but the scan-miss framing implies the boundary well.

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?