Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

手动新增角色场景道具

pavo_script_create_asset
Idempotent

Manually adds character, scene, or prop assets with initial state descriptions, saves native name/title fields, and returns real asset_id/state_id values for script planning.

Instructions

手动新增character角色、scene场景或prop道具及初始状态描述。按原生name/title字段保存，返回真实asset_id/state_id，不生成图片、不自动同步到后续制作。官网只读演示拒绝写入。

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>",
      "asset_type": "<asset_type>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_create_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
asset_typeYes
project_idYes
state_nameNo默认
descriptionNo
operation_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses the returned identifiers (real asset_id/state_id), the storage keying convention (native name/title), and the side-effect boundary (no image generation, no propagation to later production). It also warns that the hosted read-only demo rejects writes, an environment/auth constraint the annotations do not capture.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is created and followed by the behavioral caveats. No filler, and every clause — return values, storage keying, no image generation, read-only demo rejection — carries distinct information.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is created, what is persisted, what is returned, and what side effects do not occur. The remaining gap is the unmentioned project_id and operation_id semantics, which matters most for an idempotent create call.

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%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning, and it partly does: it ties asset_type to the character/scene/prop values and links name plus the initial state description to their fields. However, project_id and the required operation_id (evidently the idempotency key) get no explanation, leaving two of six parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb (手动新增 / manually create) and enumerates the exact resource subtypes it accepts — character, scene, prop — plus their initial state. That level of specificity lets an agent distinguish it from sibling creation tools such as pavo_script_create_ai or pavo_script_import_text without inspecting the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly frames the tool as the manual path ('手动') and rules out two tempting assumptions — it does not generate images and does not auto-sync downstream — which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the AI or import alternatives explicitly, so the routing decision is implied rather than spelled out.

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