Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chorono

Chorono

by codie1982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apply_script_plan

Commits a prepared script plan exactly once, preserves generated object IDs, and rejects stale scene revisions to keep edits consistent.

Instructions

Commit a previously prepared script plan exactly once, retaining generated object ids. Refuses a stale scene revision.

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": {
      "planId": "<planId>"
    },
    "name": "apply_script_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planIdYes
requestIdNo
sessionIdNo
expectedRevisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries real weight here: it discloses idempotency ('exactly once'), that generated object ids survive the commit, and that a stale scene revision causes a refusal. What is missing is whether a refusal is recoverable and whether the commit is atomic.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its key guarantee, with zero filler wording.

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 flat four-parameter mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the important semantics: idempotency, id retention, and optimistic concurrency. Only failure/recovery behavior and how planId is obtained remain unexplained.

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 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does so only indirectly: planId is implied by 'previously prepared script plan', expectedRevision by 'stale scene revision', and requestId by 'exactly once'. sessionId is never accounted for, and no parameter formats or constraints are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Commit a previously prepared script plan') plus two distinguishing properties: single execution and id retention. It does not name a sibling tool or explain how it differs from run_script or batch_actions, which are the nearest alternatives.

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 phrase 'previously prepared script plan' implies a prerequisite step, and 'exactly once' implies a retry-safe usage pattern, but the description never states when to choose this over run_script or batch_actions, nor how a plan is prepared in the first place.

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