get_section_templateInspect the prompt sections a generation job exposes for per-call override via editable_sections (jobs: script, script_scan, storyboard, segment_image, segment_video, voice_block, ...). Sections marked locked cannot be overridden.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job | Yes | Generation job name, e.g. "script", "script_scan", "storyboard", "segment_image", "segment_video", "voice_block" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds key behavioral detail: 'Sections marked locked cannot be overridden', which is beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Purpose stated upfront, followed by essential behavioral constraint. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter; description sufficiently explains input and expected output (list of sections with locked flag). No output schema needed.
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?
Schema covers the single parameter 'job' with 100% description coverage (lists examples). Description reiterates examples and adds context linking to editable_sections, but adds little new meaning beyond schema.
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?
Description explicitly states 'Inspect the prompt sections a generation job exposes for per-call override via editable_sections', clearly defining verb, resource, and purpose. Includes example job names, distinguishing it from siblings.
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?
Implicitly clear when to use: to inspect editable sections before overriding. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context and sibling list make purpose distinct.
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.