Skip to main content
Glama

cineflow_projects_list

List all studio projects with summaries of characters, locations, scenes, and production stages, and filter results by title or ID to locate specific film projects.

Instructions

List all existing projects in studio storage with summaries of their characters, locations, scenes, and production stages.

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_projects_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNoOptional search query to filter projects by title or ID (e.g. 'Убийство' or 'sci-fi').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned summaries (characters, locations, scenes, production stages) and 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, auth/studio-storage requirements, or whether the summaries are truncated.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information the agent can use.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the content of the returned summaries. The remaining gaps are pagination and result-size behavior, which are minor but not negligible for a 'list all' tool.

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% and the single 'filter' parameter already documents itself with examples for title and ID matching. The description adds no additional meaning about filter behavior (matching semantics, case sensitivity, empty-result handling), so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List all existing projects in studio storage') and additionally states what the results contain (character, location, scene and production-stage summaries), which separates it from a single-project fetch such as cineflow_project_get_state. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before cineflow_project_get_state, nor whether it should be used for discovery versus status checks. The listing purpose implies a browse/discovery use case, but no alternative or exclusion is stated.

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