Skip to main content
Glama

iClips

by io.github.mcp-dir

iclips_pieces_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lê o catálogo de peças da agência no iClips. Ações:

  • list: busca textual opcional por q, mais filtros por categoria, status e basedOnTemplateId. Pagine com page e pageSize (padrão 20).

  • get: detalhe de uma ou mais peças por piece_ids, incluindo o workflowJson e o checklistJson completos (em lote, com erro reportado por id).

[Flattened action: get]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
pageNo
statusNo
accountNo
pageSizeNo
categoriaNo
piece_idsNo
basedOnTemplateIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior; the description adds concrete behavioral detail: batch get by piece_ids, complete workflowJson/checklistJson payloads, per-id error reporting, and a default page size of 20. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one-line summary and action bullets are compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The 'Flattened action: get' line and the list action add some redundancy/ambiguity, but the structure is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it supplies most invocation details (filters, pagination, batch get, returned fields). It remains incomplete around the 'account' parameter, exact response/error shapes, and how the list action relates to iclips_pieces_list.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining q, categoria, status, basedOnTemplateId, page, pageSize (default 20), and piece_ids. The only schema parameter left unexplained is 'account', and the description does not state optionality/requiredness beyond q being optional.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lê o catálogo de peças da agência no iClips') and outlines two read actions, so an agent can infer this is a read-only piece-catalog tool. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling iclips_pieces_list, and including a 'list' action in a tool named 'get' blurs the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives usage context for parameters (list with q/filters/pagination, get with piece_ids) and implies that get is for full workflowJson/checklistJson details. It never states when to choose this tool over iclips_pieces_list or when not to use it, and the included list action competes with that sibling.

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

All iClips toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are near-duplicates, such as iclips_financial_entries_get/list, iclips_pieces_get/list, iclips_pieces_write_create/update/checklist, and iclips_workflow_templates_get/list, all sharing essentially the same description. authenticate and connect also overlap on session/connection status, so an agent must rely on brittle naming conventions rather than clear semantic boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

The iClips tools mostly follow iclips_<resource>_<action>, but the server mixes noun-only names like iclips_financial_accounts and marketplace, camelCase platform names like toolkit_info and show_version, and artificial get/list flattened duplicates. The pattern is only predictable within a subset of the tool list, not across the entire server.

Tool Count2/5

At 30 tools, the set is over-inflated for its actual scope: most are flattened get/list or write-action variants of roughly a dozen underlying iClips operations, plus six unrelated platform utilities. The domain could be cleanly served in about half this many tools without losing functionality.

Completeness2/5

Jobs and pieces have reasonable CRUD coverage, but there is no client/group or destination master lookup even though clientId is required to create a job and destination_id filters financial entries. Job pieces and tasks also lack delete operations, and financial categories are not enumerable, leaving noticeable dead ends for common workflows.

Resources