Skip to main content
Glama

iClips

by io.github.mcp-dir

iclips_workflow_templates_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lê os modelos de workflow configurados na agência no iClips. Ações:

  • list: todos os templates com id, nome e descricao (sem o workflowJson).

  • get: detalhe de um ou mais templates por template_ids, incluindo o workflowJson completo (em lote, com erro reportado por id). Use o id como basedOnTemplateId ao criar uma peça com iclips_pieces_write.

[Flattened action: get]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
template_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: list omits workflowJson, get returns the complete workflowJson for multiple ids in batch, and errors are reported per id. This gives the agent a clear operational model of the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bullets to distinguish list and get behavior. The integration note is short and actionable. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return surface (fields per mode, workflowJson presence, batch error reporting) and the downstream use case. It is missing an explicit explanation of account and a direct comparison with the sibling list tool, but otherwise it is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that template_ids selects one or more templates and that the returned id is used as basedOnTemplateId. However, the account parameter is never explicitly described beyond the vague 'agência' context, and requiredness/missing-value behavior is not addressed.

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 states a specific operation — reading iClips workflow templates — and clearly distinguishes the 'list' mode (id/name/description only) from the 'get' mode (full workflowJson, batched). It does not explicitly name the sibling iclips_workflow_templates_list as the alternative, so a small differentiation gap remains.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the 'get' action (full workflowJson) versus the lighter 'list' action, and it tells the agent that returned ids feed basedOnTemplateId in iclips_pieces_write. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention sibling alternatives, but the action-level guidance is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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