Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

编辑和增加剧本分集

pavo_script_update_episodes
Idempotent

Updates existing script episodes by ID and adds new episodes, preserving unspecified episodes. Saves changes only, without triggering asset extraction or generation.

Instructions

使用get_project完整内容返回的episodes指纹。episodes每项含episode_id及title/content修改；未指定的已有分集保留。new_episodes含episode_no/title/content。只保存，不自动触发资产提取或后续生成。

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>",
      "episodes": "<episodes>",
      "new_episodes": "<new_episodes>",
      "expected_sha256": "<expected_sha256>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_update_episodes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
episodesYes
project_idYes
new_episodesYes
operation_idYes
expected_sha256Yes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world writes, so the description's real contribution is the partial-update rule (unspecified existing episodes are preserved) and the statement that no downstream generation is fired. However, it never explains what happens when the supplied fingerprint no longer matches or why operation_id exists, which are the main behavioral risks for a mutation with optimistic locking.

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?

Four tight clauses, no filler, and the required-fingerprint instruction is front-loaded ahead of the field-level detail. The opening sentence is slightly opaque about how the fingerprint is used until the reader infers it maps to a parameter.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is close to sufficient for a save-only mutation. The unresolved pieces are concurrency semantics (failure behavior on sha mismatch) and the role of operation_id, both of which an agent needs before calling.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% with five required params, so the description must carry the load: it names the per-item fields for both array parameters and implies the sha256 fingerprint feeds expected_sha256. project_id and operation_id remain unexplained, which is the only material gap.

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 makes clear this edits existing episode entries (episode_id + title/content) and appends new ones (episode_no/title/content), and that untouched episodes are preserved. The core verb 'update episodes' is carried by the name/title rather than stated outright, so it falls just short of a self-contained 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?

It states a concrete precondition — take the episodes fingerprint from the full get_project response — and an explicit boundary: this only saves, it does not trigger asset extraction or downstream generation. It does not name a sibling alternative for adding episodes by other means, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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