Skip to main content
Glama

Set Shot Cut

lab_shots_setzen
DestructiveIdempotent

State the shot cut yourself: which clips form one shot, what it is called, which scene it plays in. This is the counterpart to lab_shots_ableiten — that one groups by the scene the clips already name, this one is for the judgement no field carries. Costs nothing. Use it where derivation cannot reach: ingested footage has no shotlist by nature, and a sequence whose clips name no scene would come out of a derivation as one shot per clip — the timeline under another name. It is also the ONLY way to build the 'movement' layer (arcs over shots); the derivation only ever writes 'shot'. REPLACES the whole level in one go: every shot of this rung that you do not list is gone. The other level is untouched — recutting shots does not throw the arcs away. Refusals happen BEFORE anything is written: an unknown clip_id, or the same clip in two shots of one level. A half-set shot list looks like a result and is none. Read lab_shots first and send its clip_ids back — a shot binds clip identities, not time ranges, so shortening a clip later simply shortens the shot. What you set here counts as handwork: a later lab_shots_ableiten leaves these shots alone and does not touch their clips.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rungNoWhich level to replace. 'shot' (the default) is one take; 'movement' groups shots into arcs. Independent layers over the same clips — writing one never touches the other
shotsYesThe whole level, in order. The order here IS the order of the shots
seq_idYesSequence id (from lab_create_sequence/lab_list_sequences) — positive integer as string

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it states the whole level is replaced atomically ('every shot of this rung that you do not list is gone'), that refusals fire before any write, that the other rung is untouched, and that hand-set shots survive later derivation. This is strong disclosure, though return/response shape is not described.

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?

Purpose and the sibling contrast are front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place. It is slightly long with some aphoristic asides ('Costs nothing', 'A half-set shot list looks like a result and is none') that add tone more than information.

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, atomic, layer-scoped mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers replacement semantics, atomic refusal, layer independence, ordering, and persistence across later derivation. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 genuine semantics beyond the schema: clip_ids bind clip identities rather than time ranges (so trimming a clip later shortens the shot), and the two rungs are independent layers. That meaning is not carried by the field descriptions alone.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource: state the shot cut yourself, defining which clips form one shot, its name, and its scene. It explicitly names the sibling it contrasts with (lab_shots_ableiten) and the level it operates on, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('where derivation cannot reach: ingested footage has no shotlist'), when-not (derivation's scope), and the exclusive capability ('the ONLY way to build the movement layer'). The alternative tool is named with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources