Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CineFlow Studio

CineFlow Studio

by MilayaMariyaAi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

cineflow_check_updates

Checks the parent CineFlow repository for newly released features, models, workflow blueprints, and studio updates so you can stay current.

Instructions

Check parent CineFlow repository for newly released features, models, workflow blueprints, or studio updates.

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": "cineflow_check_updates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check the parent repository' reasonably implies a remote read that contacts an upstream source, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether network/auth is required, whether anything is written locally, or what the check results look like, which matters for an agent with no annotation signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource ('parent CineFlow repository') appears before the enumeration of content types. Slightly list-heavy but every term is relevant.

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 zero-parameter, zero-annotation tool with no output schema, the description should say what the agent receives back from a check (e.g., a list of available updates versus a boolean 'up to date'). That return-shape gap is the main incompleteness; the scope of the check itself is adequately covered.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema, and it appropriately spends no words on parameter behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: checking the parent CineFlow repository. It enumerates the kinds of things being looked for (features, models, workflow blueprints, studio updates), which makes the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly name the complementary sibling cineflow_apply_update, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step that precedes cineflow_apply_update. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no exclusion of alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools