framesail

List segments

get_segments

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the storyboard's segments (narration span, type, duration, creative direction). The 1-based segment_number is the handle every segment tool takes (update/split/combine/continuation/regenerate) — you never need a UUID. Returns {total, offset, returned, segments}; on big projects page through with offset/limit rather than fetching all segments in one call.

Each segment also reports `continues_from_segment`. When set, this shot is a
CONTINUATION of that earlier segment: its rendered frame carries over (same
composition, characters, and setting) and only the delta changes — an added
overlay, a shifted expression, a closer angle, a slow reframe. Null means a
fresh, independent shot. The storyboard plans these chains automatically;
adjust them with set_segment_continuation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum segments to return; 0 returns all. Long-form projects can hold 100+ segments — page with offset/limit instead of pulling everything at once.
`offset`	No	0-based index of the first segment to return (pagination)
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces a pure listing behavior with no side effects. It adds substantial value beyond annotations by documenting the return shape ({total, offset, returned, segments}), the pagination behavior, and the semantics of continues_from_segment including the visual carry-over of continuation shots. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short, logically organized paragraphs: scope/handle, response shape/pagination, then continuation semantics. The front-loaded first sentence tells the agent exactly what the tool returns, and every later paragraph earns its place by explaining the response and the key returned field. Despite the length, it reads efficiently and avoids fluff.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so clearly: the segments list, pagination envelope, and meaning of continues_from_segment. Required parameter project_id, pagination options, and the next-step tools (set_segment_continuation, update/split/combine) are all addressed. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, with detailed descriptions for project_id, limit, and offset, so the description carries little burden. It does reinforce the offset/limit pagination pattern, but this largely mirrors the schema's own wording ('page with offset/limit instead of pulling everything at once'). It adds no new parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the storyboard's segments' and enumerates the returned fields (narration span, type, duration, creative direction). It also clarifies the segment_number handle, distinguishing this as the canonical list/metadata tool among many segment-related siblings. The title 'List segments' reinforces the clear scope.

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 tells the agent this is where to obtain the 1-based segment_number used by every segment mutation tool, implying a natural 'list first, then update/split/combine' workflow. It also gives explicit pagination guidance via offset/limit for large projects. It doesn't name alternative tools directly or state when not to use it, but the context is 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?