Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

重命名角色场景道具

pavo_script_rename_asset
Idempotent

Renames a character, scene, or prop asset after verifying its project, type, and fingerprint, changing only the name or title while leaving descriptions, images, and bindings untouched.

Instructions

核本项目、本类型资产及get_assets返回的asset指纹后，只修改角色name或场景/道具title，不改状态描述、图片或绑定。

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>",
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "expected_sha256": "<expected_sha256>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_rename_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
asset_idYes
asset_typeYes
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world tool. Beyond them, the description adds a specific scope: status description, images, and bindings are untouched. That is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot convey; however, it does not say what happens when expected_sha256 does not match.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the verification precondition and then states the scope limit. Nothing is redundant, although the compressed Chinese phrasing is harder to parse than a two-clause split would be.

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 values need no explanation, and the mutation risk is partly covered by naming the fields that stay unchanged. Missing are the failure behavior on fingerprint mismatch, why operation_id is required, and any authentication or permission expectations for a write to an open-world asset store.

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 must carry the load. It clarifies that name maps to the character name and that expected_sha256 comes from a get_assets fingerprint, and it implies project and type scoping. But operation_id, asset_id, and valid asset_type values remain unexplained.

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 names the concrete effect: it changes only the character's name or the scene/prop title, distinguishing this rename operation from sibling asset tools like create_asset or save_asset_state. The verb is phrased as '只修改' rather than a direct 'rename', but the target fields are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives an explicit precondition: first verify the project, the asset type, and the asset fingerprint returned by get_assets. This steers the agent to call a sibling first, but it never says when not to use this tool (for example, when the asset is locked or the type is unsupported).

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