Skip to main content
Glama

cineflow_cloud_script_plan

Upload a screenplay and project ID to the CineFlow server to enqueue a cloud planning job and wait for its result; requires CINEFLOW_API_KEY.

Instructions

Cloud mode: upload the script to the CineFlow server, enqueue the plan job, and wait for it (bounded). Requires CINEFLOW_API_KEY.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "script_text": "<script_text>"
    },
    "name": "cineflow_cloud_script_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesRemote CineFlow project id
script_textYesFull screenplay text

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?

With no annotations, the description does useful work: it discloses that script content leaves the machine for a remote server, that a job is queued, that the call blocks in a bounded wait, and that an API key is required. It does not say how long the bound is, what happens on timeout or job failure, or whether remote project state is mutated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: mode first, then the three sequential actions, then the prerequisite. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter remote job tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, auth, and blocking behavior but never says what the caller gets back (a plan document? a job id?) or how failures surface. That is a meaningful gap given the caller must wait on the result.

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 description coverage is 100% (both project_id and script_text are documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, size, or validation detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Uses concrete verbs and objects: upload the script, enqueue the plan job, wait for it. The 'Cloud mode:' prefix marks it as the remote counterpart of a local flow, so an agent can distinguish it conceptually. It stops short of naming the local alternative explicitly, 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?

'Cloud mode' implies the usage context (remote/server-side planning) and the prerequisite CINEFLOW_API_KEY is stated outright. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for local/offline planning, leaving the selection decision partly inferential.

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