Ania

Studio: create a project

studio_criar_projeto

Ania Studio makes YouTuber-style videos about the user’s app, narrated by their own Ania avatar. A project is the series (brand, avatar, voice); each episode is one video with an Ania Script (titulo + cenas). Creates a project (the series) for one app. Needs an avatar from the user’s own library (my_avatars: created, bought or free) and a voice from studio_listar_vozes. Free; agree on name, colour and voice with the user first.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "nome": "<nome>",
      "avatar_id": "<avatar_id>"
    },
    "name": "studio_criar_projeto"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cor`	No	Brand colour, #RRGGBB.
`voz`	No	Voice id from studio_listar_vozes (default 'piper-nanda').
`nome`	Yes	App / series name shown in the vignette.
`slug`	Yes	Short id for the project, kebab-case (e.g. 'my-app').
`slogan`	No	One-line slogan for the opening vignette (optional).
`url_app`	No	https URL of the app (optional).
`language`	No	The user's language as a BCP-47 tag (e.g. 'en', 'en-US', 'pt-BR', 'es'). Replies and prices follow it.
`avatar_id`	Yes	Avatar id from my_avatars (the presenter).
`descricao`	No	What the app does (optional, not spoken).
`apresentador_nome`	No	Presenter's name (defaults to the app name).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the operation is free (relevant given spend-confirmation siblings), it depends on pre-existing library assets, and it should be confirmed with the user before creating. It does not say what happens on a duplicate slug or whether a failed prerequisite blocks creation.

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?

Front-loads the product concept, then the object model, then the action and its prerequisites — a logical order with no filler. The opening two sentences are longer than strictly necessary for the tool call itself but do real disambiguation work.

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?

With 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers inputs well but never indicates what comes back — notably whether a project id or slug is returned for the follow-up studio_novo_episodio call. For a creation tool that starts a multi-step pipeline, that return-value gap is the main missing piece.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the #RRGGBB colour pattern, the voice default and the avatar id length. The description only reinforces the provenance of avatar_id and voz, which the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a project (the series) for one app') and defines the domain object it creates: a series holding brand, avatar and voice, distinct from an episode which is one video with a script. That framing lets an agent separate studio_criar_projeto from studio_novo_episodio without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites and routing: the avatar must come from my_avatars and the voice from studio_listar_vozes, and the agent should agree on name, colour and voice with the user first. The episode-versus-series contrast implicitly routes video creation elsewhere, but there is no explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion.

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

All Ania tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?