Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mondovo

by com.mondovo.app
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Edit a video script

edit_studio_video_script
Idempotent

Change the script card the director put up (pending_plan.kind "script"): the words on screen, what is seen, the voice line or the seconds of any scene, by its scene_id — and answer the card's open questions (pending_plan.questions: words in the owner's own script the brand facts do not back) with keep or remove; editing that scene's field is the "change". FREE — nothing is recorded or drawn; the card is put up again. Approve it with approve_studio_video_plan at expected_credit_cost 0 once no question is open.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenesNoOnly the scenes that change
questionsNoAnswers to pending_plan.questions
user_goalNoOptional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details.
project_idYesProject id from create_motion_project. The bare project id or the library id ("studio-video:<uuid>" from list_creations / find_creation) both work.
proposal_idYespending_plan.proposal_id of the script card

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Previous value: -"Project id from create_motion_project"New value: +"Project id from create_motion_project. The bare project id or the library id (\"studio-video:<uuid>\" from list_creations / find_creation) both work."
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_id / format
      Removed value: -"uuid"
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^(?:studio-video:)?[0-9a-f]{8}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{4}-[0-9a-f]{12}$"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, but the description adds material behavior the annotations cannot express: the edit is FREE, nothing is recorded or drawn, and the card is simply put up again. It also clarifies that field editing is the actual 'change' and that approval is a separate step. It does not cover error behavior or validation limits, so not a 5.

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?

The key action is front-loaded ('Change the script card the director put up') and every clause carries useful information about fields, questions, cost, and next step. The prose is dense and dash-heavy, which hurts readability slightly, but there is no filler.

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?

For a nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, how questions are resolved, the cost model, and the required follow-up approval. It leaves out what a successful response contains and how partial scene updates are echoed back, but those are the only meaningful omissions.

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; however the description adds real meaning by explaining that scenes are addressed by scene_id, listing the four editable scene fields, and defining questions as 'words in the owner's own script the brand facts do not back' answered with keep or remove. It does not add more detail on project_id or proposal_id beyond the schema, preventing a 5.

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 ('Change') and resource (the script card of kind 'script'), then names the exact editable fields: on-screen text, visual, voice line, seconds, keyed by scene_id. It also distinguishes the separate action of answering open questions, so an agent can tell this apart from edit_studio_video_storyboard or approve_studio_video_plan without opening another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use this on the card where pending_plan.kind is 'script', to answer pending_plan.questions with keep/remove, and gives the next step: call approve_studio_video_plan at expected_credit_cost 0 once no question is open. That is a clear when-to-use plus an explicit alternative/continuation path.

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

All Mondovo 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