Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

删除已迁移分镜镜头

pavo_script_delete_storyboard_shot
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a specified storyboard shot only after authorization and fingerprint/ownership checks, while preserving other shots, ordering, and media and blocking deletion of a scene's final shot.

Instructions

明确删除指定镜头，只用于已授权的分镜整理；拆段先完成新段复制保存与核验，再调用本工具。核最新storyboard指纹及归属，禁止删除该场景最后一镜，保留其它内容、排序相对关系和原段媒体，不删除片段或媒体；UNKNOWN禁止换号重投。

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>",
      "shot_id": "<shot_id>",
      "expected_sha256": "<expected_sha256>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_delete_storyboard_shot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shot_idYes
episode_idYes
project_idYes
operation_idYes
expected_sha256Yes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds real substance beyond them: the invariants preserved (other content, relative ordering, original segment media), the last-shot guard, the expected_sha256 fingerprint/ownership re-check, and the rule that an UNKNOWN result must not be retried under a new id. The only gap is it doesn't say what error or confirmation surface the caller gets back, though an output schema exists.

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?

The verb and scope are front-loaded, and the semicolon-separated clauses each carry a distinct rule with no filler. It is dense to the point that the trailing 'UNKNOWN禁止换号重投' is nearly telegraphic, costing some readability against a Chinese-only audience.

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 destructive, five-required-parameter mutation with an output schema present, the description supplies the preconditions, the forbidden case, the preserved invariants and the no-retry-on-UNKNOWN rule. What remains thin is the identity/ownership parameters, which are named but not characterized.

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 the load. It does explain two of the five parameters well – expected_sha256 as a latest-storyboard fingerprint check and operation_id via the 'UNKNOWN禁止换号重投' re-submission rule – but project_id, episode_id and shot_id receive no meaning beyond their names, leaving half the parameters unilluminated.

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 first clause pairs a specific verb (删除/delete) with a precise resource (指定镜头/specified storyboard shot) and scopes it to authorized storyboard cleanup. It is clearly separable from the sibling pavo_script_delete_storyboard_segment, which the closing clause explicitly says is NOT what this removes ('不删除片段或媒体').

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 states the precondition and ordering explicitly: when splitting a segment, copy and verify the new segment first, then call this tool. It also supplies a concrete when-not ('禁止删除该场景最后一镜') and restricts use to authorized storyboard organization, leaving little for the agent to infer.

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