Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

framesail

by com.framesail
OverviewDiscussions(1)Admin

Edit channels and projects

projects_edit
Destructive

Create a channel or a project, or change a project's title, brief or video format. A new project takes its channel's style; a channel with no style needs one (style_edit action=create) before anything is generated. Share the returned web_url so the user can follow along.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "projects_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNocreate_channel: the channel name
titleNoThe project title
actionYescreate_channel: name, optional description; create_project: channel_id, title, optional description, video_format; update_project: project_id and any of title, description, video_format
channel_idNocreate_project: its channel
project_idNoProject id
descriptionNoA channel: what it is about. A project: the brief, what the video is about; it seeds the script, so make it specific
video_formatNolandscape (16:9, the default) or portrait (9:16: Shorts, Reels, TikTok); fixed once a storyboard exists

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the style inheritance rule for new projects, the blocking prerequisite before generation, and the fact that a web_url is returned that should be shared. It stops short of describing what a destructive update actually overwrites or any error/permission behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, and each sentence carries distinct information (capability, prerequisite chain, output handling). The middle sentence is dense with parenthetical detail but is not redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by telling the agent a web_url is returned and should be shared. Combined with the prerequisite and style-inheritance rules, an agent has enough to invoke the right action; only the consequences of the destructive update path are left implicit, which the annotations partially cover.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the action enum already documents which parameters each action requires, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the editable fields (title, brief, video format) but adds no syntax, format or conditional detail beyond it. 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?

States concrete verbs and resources: create a channel, create a project, or change a project's title, brief or video format. This maps directly onto the three action enum values, so an agent can tell this apart from projects_read or the many other *_edit siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite rule ('a channel with no style needs one (style_edit action=create) before anything is generated') and names the sibling to use. It provides clear context for the create path but does not discuss when to prefer updating an existing project over creating a new one, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All framesail toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources