reels

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reels_create

Creates a vertical 3D scene project from structured shots or a demo, returning its ID, revision, and counts for later editing or rendering.

Instructions

Create a project from structured shots or the demo. Returns only ID, revision and counts.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "reels_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	No
`projectId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the response is deliberately thin ('only ID, revision and counts'), telling the agent it must fetch details separately. It doesn't mention idempotency, projectId collision behavior, or limits like max 60 shots / 40 entities per shot.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a schema this large, but nothing present is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a creation tool taking a large nested object with dozens of undocumented fields and no output schema, the description is far too thin, having to carry the entire parameter burden at 0% schema coverage. The return-shape sentence is the one piece of completeness it does deliver.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across a deeply nested project object (shots, entities, camera, counter, words) plus a projectId, and the description compensates only by naming 'structured shots' and 'the demo'. It never explains what projectId does on create (assign vs. overwrite), what the demo mode yields, or any field-level meaning, leaving nearly all semantics to bare JSON Schema constraints.

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?

Specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('a project') plus the two input modes ('structured shots or the demo'), which separates it from reels_list/reels_get. The only soft spot is that 'the demo' is undefined, but the agent can still tell this is the creation entry point.

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?

'From structured shots or the demo' implicitly signals the omit-project fallback to a demo project, which is real usage guidance for a call with zero required parameters. However, it never states prerequisites, when not to use it, or points to reels_get / reels_list as follow-ups.

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