Skip to main content
Glama

Media — create and change

media_write

media_write — Scripe media (the media library: search images, add the user's own, AI-generate images and carousels): create and change operations. Changes data — confirm the user's intent before chaining. An operation taking confirmationToken is two-phase: its first call only returns a proposal. Call media_write({ action: "", arguments: { …its arguments } }); describe_actions has an operation's full docs when its signature is not enough.

  • create_media_asset(projectId?: string, content_base64?: string, sha256?: string, uploadId?: string, fileName?: string, mimeType?: string, alt?: string, title?: string) — add the user's OWN image to a Scripe project's media library — send the bytes inline as content_base64 (small files only, ~3 MB decoded max — larger requests die at the platform edge as a bare 413), or pass an uploadId from…

  • generate_image(idempotencyKey?: string, projectId: string, kind: PHOTO|PHOTO_EDIT|IMAGE_EDIT, promptAsset?: string, subject?: string, steer?: string, referenceMode?: style|replicate, referenceMediaIds?: string[], subjectMediaIds?: string[], baseMediaId?: string, wait_for_completion?: bool) — AI-generate a raster image into a Scripe project's media library.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "media_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesThe operation.
argumentsNoIts arguments, as its signature names them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: the tool changes data, should be confirmed with the user, and operations with confirmationToken are two-phase where the first call only returns a proposal. It also warns that large inline content_base64 requests fail at the platform edge with a 413, which is valuable operational detail.

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 description is front-loaded with the key write/two-phase warning, then uses operation bullets for efficient scanning. It is somewhat dense and one signature is truncated, but most sentences carry useful information rather than 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 wrapper with nested operation arguments and no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke the operations, including confirmation-token behavior, file-size limits, and a pointer to describe_actions for full docs. It does not fully explain return shapes or every operation argument, but the missing detail is appropriately deferred.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema only exposes generic action and arguments fields, but the description documents operation-specific signatures and semantics, including required and optional arguments for create_media_asset and generate_image. It adds file-size limits for content_base64, uploadId usage, enums such as PHOTO|PHOTO_EDIT|IMAGE_EDIT, and reference modes.

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 the tool is for Scripe media-library create and change operations and lists the two supported operations: create_media_asset and generate_image. This distinguishes it reasonably from read/delete siblings, though the parenthetical mentions 'search images,' which is not part of this write tool and slightly blurs scope.

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 useful guidance that changes data should be confirmed before chaining and explains the two-phase confirmationToken behavior. However, it does not explicitly route the agent to media_read for searching, media_delete for deletion, or describe when to use add_post_media instead, so alternatives are mostly implied.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.