Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
H3 Cloud MCP

H3 Cloud MCP

by lst016
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

h3_art_generate_workflow

Submit an allowlisted paid H3 workflow for audio-video generation using public HTTPS media URLs, with optional prompt, seed, frames, and resolution settings.

Instructions

Submit one allowlisted paid H3 workflow. Media must be public HTTPS URLs; no local file upload.

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": {
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "h3_art_generate_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo
seedNo
audiosNo
imagesNo
promptNo
durationNo
last_frameNo
resolutionNo
first_frameNo
workflow_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the load; it usefully discloses cost (paid), an eligibility gate (allowlisted), and an input constraint (public HTTPS URLs only, no local upload). It omits asynchronous behavior — nothing says this returns a job ID needing h3_art_job_status — nor any cost magnitude or failure modes.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the hard constraint is placed where the agent will read it before constructing arguments.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 10 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: how the result is retrieved, what 'mode'/'resolution' accept, and the relationship to the quote step. The URL constraint is the only genuinely compensating detail.

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% across 10 parameters. The description only implicitly clarifies workflow_id and the URL fields (images/audios/first_frame/last_frame); mode, seed, prompt, duration and resolution are completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb (Submit) and resource (one allowlisted paid H3 workflow), with scoping qualifiers that separate it from the generic h3_art_generate. It never names the sibling it differs from, so discrimination requires prior knowledge.

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?

Implies you must first list workflows and that the call is paid, but never states to run h3_art_quote_workflow/h3_art_quote first or when to use this over h3_art_generate. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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