Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Refs

by video.refs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Plan a video from references

plan_video
Read-only

Give a brief (product, audience, length, platform) and 1-5 references (REF ids, links or ids, or your brand films' brand:: ids), and optionally one of your imported brands (brand) to plan in its house style. Returns, per reference, the plates that carry its timing and look (format, hook, beat sheet, style, sound, edit recipe) plus its recipe prompt, and the one formula that best matches, with instructions to write a shot list and a build prompt for the user's own video. With several references it also says how to mix them: one spine for structure and timing, and one named job for each of the others. Name the spine first if you already know it. Then, like an editor, it storyboards before anything is built: you draft the storyboard (1 direction for a fixed brief, 2–4 for an open one), check it with the storyboard tool and lay it out as a Claude Design canvas, the user picks a direction, and only then do you write the build prompt. For every plate of one film, use get_blueprint. Needs a Refs account with Pro; without one, the app asks the user to sign in. search_videos is free.

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": {
      "brief": "<brief>"
    },
    "name": "plan_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoOne of your brand imports (id or @handle, from list_brands): its brand kit becomes the house-style constraint
briefYesWhat the user wants to make
reference_idsNoREF-0005, refs.video/v/… or YouTube/X links, ids (get_collection lists a collection's films), or brand:<import>:<film> ids. Optional with brand: then the brand's own top films are the references

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / context
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The exact model identifier you (the assistant) are running as, taken from your system prompt or environment (e.g. \"claude-opus-4-8\", \"gpt-5.2\"). Used for analytics only. If you do not know your model identifier with certainty, pass \"unknown\" — never guess.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "brief",
-  "context",
-  "llm_model"
-]New value: +[
+  "brief"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the auth requirement (Pro account, sign-in prompt) and the shape of the return (plates per reference, recipe prompt, best-matching formula, mixing instructions). It also makes clear the tool builds nothing itself — storyboarding happens before any build — which is real behavioral context. It stops short of details like cost, latency, or reference-parsing failure modes.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core instruction is front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries information, but the second half is a sprawling run-on that mixes return-value description with agent workflow steps (storyboard, canvas, user selection) that arguably belong in a prompt rather than a tool definition. The length and comma-chained sentences make it slow to parse under time pressure.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex planning tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, accepted input forms, return contents, multi-reference mixing semantics, and the intended downstream flow. There is no output schema to lean on, and the description compensates by naming the specific artifacts a caller receives.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning not in the schema: reference order matters ('Name the spine first if you already know it', with the first reference serving as spine for structure and timing and the others assigned named jobs). It also restates the accepted reference formats and the brand-only fallback in prose form.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (plan a video from references) and immediately defines inputs (brief plus 1-5 references, optional brand) and output (per-reference plates with format, hook, beat sheet, style, sound, edit recipe; the matching formula; mixing guidance). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_blueprint for single-film plate retrieval and search_videos as the free alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit routing: use get_blueprint for every plate of one film, search_videos is free, and this tool needs a Refs account with Pro (the app prompts sign-in otherwise). It also states the downstream sequence (draft storyboard, check with the storyboard tool, canvas layout, user picks, then build prompt), so an agent knows both when to call it and what happens after.

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

All Refs toolsInspect
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