Get a recommended set of MCP servers covering the whole film pipeline (develop → visualize → shoot → sound → cut → finish → ship). Returns 1-3 picks per stage, ranked by official status and hosting. Pass a brief to bias picks (matched against capabilities and taglines).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | No | Optional: what you're making, e.g. 'a 60s commercial with a consistent character and licensed music' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the output format (1-3 picks per stage) and ranking criteria (official status and hosting), and explains how an optional brief can bias picks by matching capabilities and taglines. This provides solid behavioral expectations beyond a simple 'recommends servers' statement.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then output specifics, then input usage. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the low complexity (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the pipeline stages, the output shape, ranking criteria, and how the input affects behavior. Nothing critical appears missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 a thorough description of the 'brief' parameter with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds context on how the brief is used ('matched against capabilities and taglines'), enhancing the schema's meaning. Baseline is 3, and the added value justifies a 4.
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 provides a recommended set of MCP servers for the entire film pipeline, listing the specific stages. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the whole-pipeline planning aspect and the output structure. The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'recommended set of MCP servers' makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 when to use this tool (when needing a full film pipeline plan) and explains how to influence results with a brief. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the contextual scope is clear. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.
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.
