framesail

List scenes

list_scenes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the project's scenes in timeline order. Default rows are light summaries ({scene_id, segment_number, duration_frames, status, layer_count}) — enough to address a scene by number or id; include_composition=True returns the full layer/layout JSON (bulky — page with offset/limit on long projects). Returns {total, offset, returned, scenes}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum scenes to return; 0 returns all
`offset`	No	0-based index of the first scene to return (pagination)
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID, as returned by create_project or list_projects
`include_composition`	No	Include each scene's full composition JSON (layers, layout) — kilobytes per scene, so page with offset/limit when True; the default summary rows are enough for ids and director notes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses timeline ordering, the difference between summary and full composition output, the bulk/volume warning, and the exact response envelope {total, offset, returned, scenes}. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of cost and output without contradicting the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then the mode trade-off, then the return shape. Every clause contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the response wrapper shape and enough detail about both output modes to interpret results. Combined with annotations covering side-effect safety, nothing an agent needs to invoke or understand the tool is missing.

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?

The schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when summary fields suffice, warning that include_composition is bulky, and explicitly tying offset/limit to pagination on long projects.

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 a specific verb ('List'), resource ('the project's scenes'), and ordering ('timeline order'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling listing tools for other resource types such as list_assets, list_projects, and list_styles. There is no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

Provides clear usage context: default light summaries are enough to address a scene by id or number, while include_composition=True returns bulky JSON and should be paginated for long projects. It does not explicitly contrast against a sibling alternative, but the tool's role and the trade-off between modes are clearly laid out.

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?