SHAR Production is an AI-hybrid video production studio. This MIT-licensed, read-only MCP server validates rights-aware production metadata manifests for agents and MCP-compatible clients.
It exposes validate_production_manifest. The tool accepts a manifest object, returns a releasability result, does not read local files, call networks, or publish data.
git clone https://github.com/SHARProduction/production-metadata-mcp.git
cd production-metadata-mcp
npm ci
node server.jsThe npm package name is reserved in the project metadata, but a public npm release is not currently available. Use the source installation above until a public package release is independently verifiable.
Homepage: https://sharprod.com/
The machine-readable structural contract is available at schema/production-manifest.schema.json. It mirrors the validator fields and deliberately distinguishes structural validity from the releasability policy for ights_status=unknown.
Checks required project metadata, production stage, and declared rights status. Does not read files, call networks, or publish data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manifest | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds specific behavioral clarity beyond that: it will not read files, call networks, or publish data. This helps an agent understand the tool's safety envelope and side-effect profile much more concretely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core validation purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying caveats follow naturally without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers what the tool checks and what side effects it avoids, which is sufficient for basic selection. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns on success or failure, how validation results are reported, or what 'required' means in practice. These gaps matter for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the single 'manifest' parameter, and with 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate. It partially does by explaining that the manifest is checked for required project metadata, production stage, and declared rights status, but it does not specify the expected structure or fields, leaving the parameter semantics somewhat underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific verb ('Checks') and a clear resource ('production metadata manifest'), and specifies exactly what is checked: required project metadata, production stage, and declared rights status. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose even without sibling comparisons.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for validating a production manifest before acting on it, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what conditions make it the right choice. The 'Does not read files, call networks, or publish data' caveat gives useful exclusionary context but stops short of concrete usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4validate_production_manifestScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is clearly defined in its description, leaving no ambiguity.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern: validate_production_manifest. There are no other tools to introduce inconsistency, so naming is perfectly coherent.
A single tool feels thin for a server named 'Metadata MCP,' which could imply a broader scope. However, the tool's narrowly defined validation purpose means one tool may be reasonable, but it falls in the borderline range.
The tool covers the core validation functionality for production metadata, checking project metadata, stage, and rights status. However, the server name suggests a broader metadata management role, so additional operations like retrieval or update might be expected, creating a minor gap.
Experimental MCP server for current empirical verification of explicit public HTTPS endpoint claims.
MCP server for mandates, delegation, policy-gated execution, credential grants, and audit.
Guarded MCP server for agent-readable business truth, provenance, readiness, and discovery.
Read-only MCP server for The Quiet Protocol's engines, benchmarks, proof, and business data.
