Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pavo 官网 MCP

Pavo 官网 MCP

by congliu1851-ui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

编辑剧本大纲

pavo_script_update_outline
Idempotent

Update selected outline fields via expected fingerprint, preserving other content and avoiding web-edit conflicts; supports story type, audience, one-line story, summary, setting, and character bios.

Instructions

根据get_project返回的outline指纹修改指定字段。支持story_type/target_audience/one_line_story/story_summary/world_setting/character_biographies(name,bio)，保留其余内容，不自动确认大纲。官网无version CAS，避免同时在网页编辑。

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>",
      "patch": "<patch>",
      "expected_sha256": "<expected_sha256>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>"
    },
    "name": "pavo_script_update_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patchYes
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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: partial update semantics ('保留其余内容') and that the outline is not auto-confirmed. However, it does not say what happens on a SHA mismatch (the key failure mode of the optimistic-concurrency contract) nor how operation_id drives replay/idempotency.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the mechanism (fingerprint-based field patch) comes first, then the field list, then the two caveats. The long field enumeration earns its place, though the single run-on sentence makes scanning harder and the 'name,bio' fragment is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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's safety profile plus no-auto-confirm behavior are covered. Still, for a concurrency-controlled mutation the description omits stale-fingerprint error behavior and operation_id semantics, leaving the agent without enough to handle failure paths correctly.

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 partly does: it explains expected_sha256's origin (get_project outline fingerprint) and enumerates allowed patch keys, but leaves operation_id completely unexplained and does not clarify that patch is an open partial object (additionalProperties=true). With two of four parameters undocumented, the gap is significant.

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 ('修改指定字段') and resource (the project's outline), and enumerates the editable fields (story_type/target_audience/one_line_story/story_summary/world_setting/character_biographies), which implicitly separates it from siblings like pavo_script_update_episodes and pavo_script_update_storyboard. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('根据get_project返回的outline指纹'), stating that expected_sha256 must come from a prior pavo_get_project call, and adds a real usage constraint: avoid editing on the website simultaneously. It does not say when to prefer this over other update tools or what to do if the fingerprint is stale.

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