Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

读取片段媒体和状态

pavo_script_get_segment_media
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves segment-level media details including keyframes, video history, task status, and selected slot for a specific project episode segment, returning media fingerprints.

Instructions

核原生制作分集及片段归属，读取关键帧/视频历史、原生任务状态及选中槽位，返回_mcp_fingerprints.media。关键帧为segment级，一段多镜仍只有该段槽位。

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>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_get_segment_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
episode_idYes
project_idYes
segment_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it states the keyframe granularity is segment-level, so a multi-shot segment still exposes only that segment's slot, and it locates the payload at _mcp_fingerprints.media. That granularity caveat is genuinely non-obvious behavior an agent could otherwise get wrong. Permission requirements are not stated.

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?

Two compact sentences with the read scope front-loaded and the return path and granularity caveat following. No filler, though the opening phrase is dense with domain jargon that slightly impedes a cold read.

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

Completeness3/5

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 need not be explained, and annotations handle safety. What remains missing is parameter meaning and the relationship to the sibling video-task and storyboard readers, which matters given how many segment-related tools share this namespace.

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%, so all three required string parameters (project_id, episode_id, segment_id) rely on the description, which never defines them. The phrase about validating episode and segment ownership hints that episode_id/segment_id identify the owning scope, but there is no format, sourcing, or constraint guidance.

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?

The description gives a specific read verb and enumerates the exact resources returned: keyframe/video history, native task status, and the selected slot, scoped to episode and segment ownership. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings (attach/select/submit segment media) and from a single-task lookup. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just under 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance and no exclusions. The description never contrasts this tool with pavo_script_get_segment_video_task or pavo_script_get_storyboard, so an agent must infer from the field list that this is the consolidated segment-level media read.

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