Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCPBridge Server

MCPBridge Server

by RBG-WebDesign
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

title_sequence_bind

Bind Level Sequence to BP_TitleController by generating a sequence spec from frame numbers, enabling timing and cue control for title animations.

Instructions

Create a Level Sequence binding spec for driving BP_TitleController from frame numbers. This is a v1 scaffold until the bridge has full Sequencer event-track authoring.

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": "title_sequence_bind"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
manifestNo
manifest_pathNo
sequence_pathNo
controller_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is a v1 scaffold, which is a useful maturity caveat, but it does not disclose side effects, file requirements, whether existing specs are overwritten, or any other behavioral traits beyond the creation act.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the scaffold note adds important context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with five parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention expected inputs, return values, validation, or how it fits into the broader workflow of title creation and binding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. While parameter names like manifest_path and sequence_path are self-descriptive, the description adds no semantic detail about how they relate to the binding process or what values are expected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a Level Sequence binding spec to drive BP_TitleController from frame numbers. This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like title_manifest_create or title_controller_create.

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?

The note 'v1 scaffold until the bridge has full Sequencer event-track authoring' implies when to use it as a temporary solution, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or prerequisites. It gives some context but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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