framesail

Generate script

generate_script

Generate the project's script from its description/concept and the channel's narrative style. Async — returns {job_id}; poll get_workflow_status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model`	No	Model ID to generate with; empty uses the default (see list_models("script"))
`settings`	No	Model-specific settings; valid keys come from the model's settings_schema in list_models("script")
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects
`editable_sections`	No	Per-call prompt section overrides, keyed by section name; see get_section_template("script") for the sections this job exposes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses async behavior and the need to poll 'get_workflow_status', adding behavioral context beyond the all-false annotations. It does not cover potential side effects, but the 'generate' verb implies non-destructive creation.

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 concise and front-loaded sentences: the first states the purpose, the second describes the async pattern. No redundant information.

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 core behavior and async workflow. It could mention prerequisites like existing project and channel narrative style, but the schema references provide sufficient context.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it generates a script from the project's description/concept and the channel's narrative style, distinguishing it from related siblings like 'revise_script' or 'scan_script'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for initial script generation but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'revise_script' for modifications.

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?