io.github.ethanhamilthon/yenflow

yenflow_generate_scene

Create a video scene from a text prompt and a start frame. Set duration, aspect, resolution, and output path to produce scene assets for multi-scene video workflows.

Instructions

Alias for flow_generate_scene.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`model`	No	omni_flash
`aspect`	No	16:9
`prompt`	Yes
`profile`	No	default
`approved`	No
`duration`	No
`end_frame`	No
`timeout_s`	No
`project_id`	No
`resolution`	No	360p
`output_path`	No
`plan_sha256`	No
`start_frame`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.75.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description discloses nothing about side effects, generation behavior, or what the tool returns. It only states it is an alias, which is minimal context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single sentence that merely says 'Alias for flow_generate_scene' does not earn its place because it fails to convey the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 13 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a complex generation workflow, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool based on the provided information alone.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. With 13 parameters and 2 required, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, but it provides nothing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a tautology: 'Alias for flow_generate_scene.' It does not state what the tool does, only that it is an alias for another tool. An agent cannot determine the tool's function without looking up flow_generate_scene.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely points to flow_generate_scene as the canonical tool, but does not explain when to choose yenflow_generate_scene over flow_generate_scene, yenflow_submit_scene, or other siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.