framesail

Generate style template

generate_style_template

Render one of a style's two template images — a REAL step of style setup, not an optional extra: a style isn't finished until both its character and environment templates are rendered (the app shows them on the style card). Asset reference images render against them (characters → character template; environments and objects → environment template), and segment renders fall back on them when a shot has no asset reference — so finish BOTH before generate_asset_reference. Run once per template_type ("character" | "environment") for every new style; skip types the style already has (get_style's templates). A template already exists is a hard stop here — the call refuses unless replace=True, because overwriting one silently re-anchors every future render. Async — await_jobs(style_id=...), then get_style.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model`	No	Image model ID; empty uses the template job's default (see list_models)
`replace`	No	Set True ONLY to deliberately overwrite an existing template of this type — the user must have asked for a new one. Leave False and the call refuses rather than clobbering a template the style already has
`style_id`	Yes	Style ID, as returned by create_style or list_styles
`template_type`	Yes	Which of the style's two template images to render: "character" or "environment" — run once for each
`editable_sections`	No	Per-call prompt section overrides, keyed by section name; see get_section_template for the template job

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so description carries full burden. It discloses that overwriting re-anchors future renders, that an existing template causes refusal unless replace=True, and that the operation is async.

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?

Dense but every sentence adds unique operational info: purpose, rationale, prerequisites, edge case, and async guidance. Front-loaded with the core purpose, avoiding redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, workflow position, edge cases, and async behavior. It directs to await_jobs and get_style to verify completion, making it operationally complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds workflow context (run once per type, replace semantics, async follow-up) that goes beyond the schema, justifying a 4.

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?

States 'Render one of a style's two template images' with a specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from generate_asset_reference and refers to get_style for checking existing templates.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: run once per template_type, skip types the style already has, finish both before generate_asset_reference. Also explains the hard stop and replace=True exception.

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?