Skip to main content
Glama

fc_describe

Retrieve a FilmCraft command's menu, shortcut, parameter schema, and enabled status by ID to confirm how to invoke or configure it.

Instructions

Get full details for a single filmCraft command: its menu, shortcut, parameter schema, and whether it is currently enabled.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "fc_describe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesfilmCraft command ID to describe.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.24.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the shape of the payload (menu, shortcut, parameter schema, enabled flag), which tells the agent this is an informational read, but it never states behavior for an unknown/invalid command ID, whether anything is mutated, or any permission requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return contents listed after the colon. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields largely substitutes for a return spec. The remaining gap is relational: the agent still cannot tell from this description why it should pick fc_describe over fc_inspect.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as the 'filmCraft command ID', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that the ID addresses exactly one command rather than a pattern or list, but adds no format or sourcing guidance (e.g. where to obtain the ID).

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 ('Get full details') and resource ('a single filmCraft command'), and even enumerates what those details include (menu, shortcut, parameter schema, enabled state). It implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling fc_list_commands, but does not distinguish itself from fc_inspect, which could plausibly also return command details.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a single command' suggests calling this after fc_list_commands to drill into one entry. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative (notably fc_inspect), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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