framesail

Update style fields

update_style_fields

Destructive

Hand-edit a style's analyzed fields after reviewing them — e.g. tighten the art_style wording or adjust the director_style pacing rules.

`fields` is a PATCH, merged over what the style already has: send only the
keys you are changing and leave the rest out — there is no need to read
the whole dict back with get_style and round-trip it. Pass {key: null} to
delete a user-added key (the well-known art_style / narrative_style /
director_style / script_prompt cannot be deleted, only rewritten, and
cannot be set empty). Editing fields does NOT trigger re-analysis, so your
edits stick.

Real media is switched by the literal `@real-media` tag inside
director_style's prose: add the tag plus prose describing when/how/how
much real media appears to turn it on; remove the tag (or its passage) to
turn it off.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes	Sparse patch of style fields, shaped {key: {"value": str, "applies_to": [...]}} — send ONLY the keys you are changing; unlisted keys keep their current value
`style_id`	Yes	Style ID, as returned by create_style or list_styles

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavior: PATCH-merge semantics, deletion via {key: null}, restrictions on well-known keys, the fact that edits do NOT trigger re-analysis, and the special @real-media tag behavior. This is rich, non-obvious context that an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains patch semantics, deletion rules, re-analysis behavior, and the real-media tag without redundancy. The structure is logical and scannable.

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?

For a destructive, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: required arguments, how to shape fields, what can and cannot be updated, deletion behavior, and the effect on re-analysis. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the PATCH merge model, that unlisted keys are preserved, that null deletes user-added keys, and that well-known keys cannot be empty. This materially helps an agent construct valid arguments.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Hand-edit a style's analyzed fields after reviewing them.' It names concrete examples (art_style wording, director_style pacing rules) that distinguish it from sibling tools like update_style_references or analyze_style. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives clear practical guidance: use this only for manual edits to analyzed fields, send only changed keys, and avoid round-tripping via get_style. It also warns that edits do NOT trigger re-analysis. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as analyze_style for re-analysis or update_style_references for reference fields, but the usage context is strong.

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?