Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

选择片段已有媒体

pavo_script_select_segment_media
Idempotent

Selects and validates an existing media item for a script segment by unique media ID, verifies its latest fingerprint, and confirms the target slot without generating new media.

Instructions

只选择该片段原生历史中的唯一media_id，核最新media指纹并回读目标槽位；禁止运行中或失败记录，保留另一槽位和所有原媒体、正文。不生成。

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>",
      "media_id": "<media_id>",
      "expected_sha256": "<expected_sha256>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_select_segment_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
media_idYes
episode_idYes
project_idYes
segment_idYes
operation_idYes
expected_sha256Yes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true); the description adds substantive behavior: no new media is produced, existing media and the other slot are preserved, and a fingerprint check gates the write. The one unresolved point is the unexplained 'target slot', which has no corresponding parameter, so an agent cannot tell which slot is overwritten when there are two.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the core action and its constraint; each clause adds a distinct rule. The semicolon-dense phrasing is efficient but borderline for readability.

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?

Output schema and annotations relieve part of the burden, and the mutation semantics are mostly stated. Still, for a six-parameter required-everything mutation with zero schema documentation, missing operation_id semantics and the ambiguous slot target are real gaps an agent could trip on.

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 the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does: media_id and the hash check (expected_sha256) are hinted at, but project_id, episode_id, segment_id and especially operation_id (presumably an idempotency token) are never explained, nor is what happens on a hash mismatch.

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 and resource: select a unique media_id from the segment's original history, verifying the latest media fingerprint and writing it to the target slot. The closing '不生成' (does not generate) usefully separates it from media-generating siblings, though it doesn't name the near neighbors (get_segment_media, attach_segment_media) directly.

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?

Gives real preconditions ('禁止运行中或失败记录' — reject running or failed records) and scope limits (only media already in the segment's own history), which is above-average usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over pavo_script_attach_segment_media or pavo_script_get_segment_media, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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