get_episode_editorGet the full episode tree in one call: project, episode, outline, script, segments, shots, characters, looks, locations and jobs. Prefer this over several narrower calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| episode_id | Yes | Episode id. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description uses the non-destructive verb 'Get'. The description is consistent with the annotation but does not add further behavioral details beyond what the annotation already conveys.
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?
The description is concise—two sentences—and front-loads the main purpose. It lists the tree contents efficiently and the usage advice is brief but clear. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 composite getter without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned by enumerating the entities in the tree. It doesn't mention potential response size or pagination, but the list of included items gives a strong sense of the response scope.
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 schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Project id.' and 'Episode id.'), giving 100% coverage. However, the description adds no additional context about the parameters, so the score stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.
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's purpose: 'Get the full episode tree in one call' and lists all the included entities (project, episode, outline, script, segments, shots, characters, looks, locations, jobs). It also distinguishes itself from narrower sibling tools by advising to 'Prefer this over several narrower calls.'
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('Prefer this over several narrower calls'), implying that it is for cases where the full episode tree is needed. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast with narrower calls provides clear guidance.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between get_episode_shots and list_episode_segments, and get_episode_editor vs get_episode could be confused. Overall, the generate/get/list/update families are reasonably distinguishable.
The verb_noun pattern is consistently applied across generate_, get_, list_, and update_ tools. Minor deviations like get_episode_editor (which returns a tree rather than an editor) and get_asset_library (rather than list_assets) prevent a perfect score.
With exactly 25 tools, this exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+ in the calibration. While the domain is complex, the count feels heavy, especially with many near-duplicate get/list variants.
The tool surface is read- and generation-heavy but lacks update operations for characters, episodes, and projects, and has no delete operations at all. This creates notable gaps in lifecycle management, though the existing read/generate coverage is substantial.