Skip to main content
Glama

读取剧本角色场景道具

pavo_script_get_assets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves a project's characters, scenes, props, and their statuses, plus _mcp_fingerprints for verifying manual edits without re-extracting or regenerating images.

Instructions

读取characters/scenes/props与各状态,额外返回_mcp_fingerprints用于手动编辑前核对;不重新提取或生成图片。

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>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_get_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the extra _mcp_fingerprints field and its purpose (verification before manual editing), plus confirming no re-extraction or image generation occurs.

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?

One compact sentence with the read scope front-loaded, followed by the two behavioral clauses that matter (fingerprints, no regeneration). No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in the one non-obvious return field and the no-op nature of the call. The remaining gap is the undocumented project_id, minor for an obvious required identifier.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter project_id, and the description says nothing about what a project_id refers to or where to obtain it. It compensates only indirectly by making clear which project-scoped resources are returned.

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 (读取) and concrete resources (characters/scenes/props 与各状态), which lets an agent distinguish this read call from the many mutation siblings such as pavo_script_create_asset or pavo_script_save_asset_state. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase '用于手动编辑前核对' gives a clear usage context (call this before manual edits to verify state), and '不重新提取或生成图片' rules out expecting regeneration from it. It does not name a specific alternative tool for the regenerate case, so no explicit exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.