Get one production playbook by id, including primary servers, setup order, auth gates, workflow steps, failure modes, fallback servers, constraints, and links to each server's mcp.film page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Playbook id, e.g. 'commercial-sprint' or 'local-edit-bay' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly lists the returned contents including servers, auth gates, steps, failure modes, constraints, and links, making the tool's scope clear. It omits error handling details but is adequate for a read-like get operation.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then lists relevant content components without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, making it appropriately concise.
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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter, the description fully specifies the expected output components, compensating for the lack of output schema. The sibling context clarifies its role in the toolset.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with an example for 'id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'by id', so it does not enhance what the schema already provides.
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 it retrieves one production playbook by id and enumerates the included content. It distinguishes from sibling list_film_playbooks by specifying 'one', indicating a single-item fetch.
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 implies use when a specific playbook id is known, contrasting with list_film_playbooks which likely lists all. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.
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 target distinct entities (capabilities, playbooks, recommendations, servers, install configs). The only potential confusion is between plan_film_stack and recommend_film_mcps, but their descriptions clarify different scopes: full pipeline vs intent-routed brief.
All tools follow a consistent verb-first snake_case pattern: get_ for singular resources, list_ for plural, plus search_, plan_, recommend_, and submit_. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
15 tools is at the upper end of the ideal range but each earns its place: search, retrieval, listing, planning, recommendation, install config, and submission. No redundant tools.
Covers the full directory lifecycle: discovery, retrieval, contextual listings, planning, recommendations, install config generation, and submission. Minor gap: there's no explicit list-all-servers endpoint, but search_film_mcps can fulfill that role.
