list_agent_office_films[read] List the AI Office short films (status SCRIPT, ASSETS, COMPOSE, RENDER, THUMBNAIL, DONE, FAILED, CANCELLED ...), optionally by run (agent_office_run_id or agent_office_run_uuid) or status, with their scene progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| agent_office_run_id | No | ||
| agent_office_run_uuid | No | ||
| agent_office_film_status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting that results carry scene progress and enumerating lifecycle statuses, but it says nothing about pagination defaults/limits or ordering, which matter for a list endpoint.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first, filters second, and included payload last. The long parenthetical status list is useful but slightly crowds the sentence and trails off with "...".
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?
With no output schema and zero documented parameters, the description should do more: pagination behavior, default ordering, and the shape of "scene progress" are all unstated. It is adequate for a simple list call but leaves real gaps for a 5-parameter endpoint.
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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the two run identifiers as filters and names the status filter, but leaves page/per_page (pagination) completely unexplained and gives no hint about the tradeoff between run_id and run_uuid.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List the AI Office short films") and scopes it further with statuses, optional run filters, and included scene progress. An agent can tell this apart from get_agent_office_film (singular fetch) and list_agent_office_plans without opening a schema.
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?
It states the optional filtering dimensions (by run id/uuid or status), which implies when to use the tool, but never contrasts it with get_agent_office_film for single-film retrieval or list_agent_office_plans. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
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.