list_stylesList the channel's style rows (variable groups). Styles hold the art_style / narrative_style / director_style / script_prompt fields that drive every generation step, plus any custom @variables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel_id | Yes | ID of the channel that owns the styles, from list_channels |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about what the styles contain, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or return format. Extra detail would improve transparency.
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 redundancy, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value. Excellent conciseness.
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?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and what the items represent. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention that the output is a list of style objects, but it is implied by 'List the channel's style rows.'
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?
The single parameter (channel_id) is fully described in the input schema with a clear description. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, hitting the baseline.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'style rows (variable groups)' and mentions specific fields (art_style, narrative_style, etc.), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_style or create_style, which would push it to a 5.
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?
The description explains that styles 'drive every generation step,' implying when to use this tool (to see styles affecting generation), but it gives no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_style or analyze_style.
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.