CineFlow Studio

cineflow_shot_record_artifact

Records generated shot artifacts by saving the exact ComfyUI workflow JSON and a .cineflow.json sidecar beside the media, preserving reproducible generation context for each shot.

Instructions

Record a generated shot artifact, saving the exact ComfyUI workflow JSON and creating a sidecar .cineflow.json alongside the media.

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>",
      "scene_id": "<scene_id>",
      "shot_id": "<shot_id>",
      "media_filename": "<media_filename>"
    },
    "name": "cineflow_shot_record_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	No	Generation seed.
`model`	No	Model checkpoint name used.
`prompt`	No	English generation prompt.
`shot_id`	Yes	Shot identifier (e.g. 'shot_01').
`metadata`	No	Optional additional shot metadata.
`scene_id`	Yes	Scene identifier.
`comfy_url`	No	ComfyUI URL used for generation.
`project_id`	Yes	Project identifier.
`workflow_api`	No	Exact ComfyUI workflow prompt JSON dictionary.
`media_filename`	Yes	Generated media filename (e.g. 'shot_01.mp4').
`comfy_prompt_id`	No	ComfyUI prompt execution task ID.
`negative_prompt`	No	Negative prompt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 does deliver real behavioral content: it discloses that this is a write operation producing two files (workflow JSON and a sidecar .cineflow.json next to the media). It stops short of overwrite behavior, directory prerequisites, permissions, and what happens if the media file is absent.

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 naming the action and its two observable effects, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. Every clause 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 12-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or overwrite semantics. It covers the side effects well but leaves the response and idempotency behavior entirely unstated.

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%, so all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that workflow_api is the exact ComfyUI JSON that gets persisted and that media_filename locates the sidecar, but adds no format or validation detail beyond that.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Record") and resource ("generated shot artifact") and states the concrete outputs: the exact ComfyUI workflow JSON plus a sidecar .cineflow.json. It does not distinguish itself from nearby tools like cineflow_comfy_workflow_execute or cineflow_export_mp4, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The phrase "generated shot artifact" weakly implies a post-generation step, but nothing tells the agent whether this should be called before/after export or instead of the execution tool, and no duplicate-recording caveat is given.

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

Deploy Server