Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

删除已迁移且无媒体的旧片段

pavo_script_delete_storyboard_segment
DestructiveIdempotent

Safely deletes an old AI draft storyboard segment after verified replacement segments are saved, backing up the full episode and confirming the target is gone while other content remains.

Instructions

仅用于明确授权的分镜迁移：先完整保存并人工核完替代段台词/动作，再删除无任何已选及历史媒体的旧AI草稿段。须同集真实非空replacement_segment_ids、最新storyboard指纹、绝对backup_dir；工具先备份整集，再按官网DELETE segments/{id}删除并回读目标消失、替代及其它正文/媒体/顺序保留。不是删除最后一镜的兜底，不删除剧本/资产；UNKNOWN禁止新号重投。

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>",
      "episode_id": "<episode_id>",
      "segment_id": "<segment_id>",
      "replacement_segment_ids": "<replacement_segment_ids>",
      "expected_sha256": "<expected_sha256>",
      "backup_dir": "<backup_dir>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_delete_storyboard_segment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backup_dirYes
episode_idYes
project_idYes
segment_idYes
operation_idYes
expected_sha256Yes
replacement_segment_idsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructive/idempotent/openWorld; the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it backs up the whole episode first, issues an official DELETE segments/{id}, then reads back to confirm the target is gone and replacements, other body text, media and ordering are preserved. It also states required preconditions (non-empty same-episode replacement ids, latest storyboard fingerprint, absolute backup_dir) and the retry rule for UNKNOWN outcomes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense paragraph that is well ordered: purpose → preconditions → execution/verification behavior → exclusions. Every clause carries information, though the run-on punctuation makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted or sentence-split version would be.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, 7-required-parameter tool, the description covers preconditions, side effects, verification, and failure handling; with an output schema present it need not describe return values. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load; it meaningfully explains replacement_segment_ids (must be real, non-empty, same episode), expected_sha256 (latest storyboard fingerprint) and backup_dir (absolute path), and hints at operation_id reuse via the UNKNOWN re-submission rule. The plain project_id/episode_id/segment_id are self-evident from their names, but operation_id is never explicitly defined as an idempotency key.

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 names a specific verb and resource (删除旧AI草稿段) and narrows the target class to 'migrated, media-free legacy AI draft segments', which separates it from the generic storyboard/shot deletion siblings. The qualifier '仅用于明确授权的分镜迁移' front-loads the scope so an agent knows immediately what this tool is for.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit preconditions (save and manually verify replacement segment dialogue/action first), explicit exclusions ('不是删除最后一镜的兜底', '不删除剧本/资产'), and an error-handling rule ('UNKNOWN禁止新号重投'). This is close to a full when/when-not/alternative specification.

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