CineFlow Studio

cineflow_auth

Stores a CineFlow API key for cloud calls, enabling authenticated requests while leaving tier and entitlement checks to the CineFlow server on each call.

Instructions

Store a CineFlow API key for cloud calls. Saving is not verification: the tier and entitlements are decided by the CineFlow server on each cloud call.

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": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>"
    },
    "name": "cineflow_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	Yes	CineFlow API key starting with 'cf_live_', 'cf_test_' or 'cf_pro_'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: saving is not verification and entitlements are resolved server-side per call. It omits other behaviors an agent needs for a credential write — where the key is persisted, whether an existing key is overwritten, and what happens on an invalid or expired key.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat immediately after it. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter credential tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the purpose and the verification caveat but leaves the storage/overwrite semantics and post-call state unspecified. Adequate, with clear remaining gaps.

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 documents the accepted 'cf_live_', 'cf_test_' and 'cf_pro_' prefixes, so the description need add nothing. It adds no extra meaning about the api_key parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Store a CineFlow API key for cloud calls' states a specific verb and resource, and no sibling tool appears to handle credential storage, so the agent can place it easily. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any alternative, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the key is stored 'for cloud calls', so the agent can infer this must precede cloud operations. There is no explicit 'use this before X, not for Y' framing and no mention of re-invocation or replacement of an existing key.

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

Deploy Server