Cyan Eclipse Cadence MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read one stored Cadence render record

cadence_renders_read

Reads one stored render or acceptance record in full by its exact record_id, returning episode, take, voice, duration, gate counts, state, source file, and receipt hash when sealed.

Instructions

Read one stored render or acceptance record in full by exact record_id, returning its episode, take, audio reference, voice, duration, basis, gate counts and percentage, state, source file, and stored receipt hash when the record is a sealed receipt. Use after cadence_renders_list when full evidence is needed; use cadence_receipts_verify for the facade's own call-receipt chain rather than a render record's stored receipt. An unknown record_id returns an error. Behaviour: local file read only; no synthesis, network, authentication, credentials, or external service; a successful call appends a content-minimal hash receipt. Returns the record plus receipt_id and receipt_head.

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": {
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "cadence_renders_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`record_id`	Yes	Exact stored render-record identifier, for example ep18-cadence, ep18-shipped, or ep18-receipt. Obtain valid identifiers from cadence_renders_list.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`take`	Yes
`audio`	Yes
`basis`	Yes
`state`	Yes
`voice`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`episode`	Yes
`record_id`	Yes
`duration_s`	Yes
`receipt_id`	Yes	Identifier of the content-minimal receipt appended for this successful call.
`in_band_pct`	Yes
`judged_count`	Yes
`receipt_head`	Yes	Hash head of the facade receipt chain after this call's receipt was appended.
`in_band_count`	Yes
`receipt_sha256`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which could mislead for a 'read' tool, but the description resolves it: a successful call appends a content-minimal hash receipt, explaining the write side effect. It further discloses no network/auth/credentials, local-file-only access, error behavior on unknown record_id, and that receipt_id and receipt_head are returned — value well beyond the annotation flags.

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-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, then behavior — a logical order with no filler sentences. The long enumeration of returned fields slightly overstays given an output schema exists, but it remains readable and each clause carries information.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, error case, and sibling disambiguation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives example identifiers plus a pointer to cadence_renders_list, so parameter documentation is largely redundant. The description adds only the 'exact' match requirement and the fact that an unknown id errors, which is marginal but non-zero added meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read one stored render or acceptance record in full by exact record_id') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It distinguishes itself from cadence_renders_list (listing vs. single-record) and cadence_receipts_verify (render record hash vs. facade call-receipt chain) by name.

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 states the sequencing rule ('Use after cadence_renders_list when full evidence is needed') and explicitly routes a plausible confusion case to a sibling: cadence_receipts_verify for the facade's own call-receipt chain. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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

Deploy Server