Skip to main content
Glama
paulmichaelstafford

cwmcp

by paulmichaelstafford
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

chapter_release_sanity_check

Validate all 18 variants of a story chapter after release, ensuring structural integrity: all language-level combos present, consistent mark UUIDs, monotonic timings, non-blank translations, and valid audio.

Instructions

Verify a chapter release — all 18 variants (9 langs × 2 levels) of one story chapter. Run this after every chapter release as the final sign-off before declaring the chapter done.

Downloads each variant zip and checks structural integrity:

  • All 18 (lang, level) combos present.

  • mark UUIDs consistent across marks.json, mark_ids_to_translation.json, and marks_in_milli_seconds.json.

  • Mark timings strictly monotonic.

  • Each mark has exactly the 8 expected target languages.

  • No blank target translations (the bug class that bit Ministry of Quiet ch4).

  • EU↔EU pairs have non-empty tokenAlignments with in-bounds ranges.

  • CJK pairs have non-empty tokens (no stray alignments).

  • audio.mp3 present and non-trivial in size.

Args: publication_id: Publication UUID. title_prefix: Title prefix that matches all 18 variants of the story chapter (e.g. "0005 - " for Iliad ch5). Variants are matched by title.startswith(title_prefix).

Returns the report shape (top-level ok, variants_found, missing_combos, errors, warnings, variants[]). ok=true means every variant passed and all 18 combos are present.

This check is structural only — it does not verify the audio language matches the chapter language (use Whisper tiny separately for that) or that translations are semantically correct (manual review).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
publication_idYes
title_prefixYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Tool Definition Quality

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly lists all the structural checks performed, including downloading zips and verifying consistency, monotonic timings, etc. It does not describe any destructive behavior, and since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is well-structured with a bolded summary, bullet points for checks, separate parameter explanations, and a note on limitations. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and the structure aids readability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (18 variants, multiple checks) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what checks are performed, parameter details, return shape, and exclusions. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Both parameters are explained with types and examples: publication_id is a Publication UUID, title_prefix is a string that matches variant titles, e.g., '0005 - '. This adds meaning beyond the schema which has no descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to verify a chapter release consisting of 18 variants. It uses the specific verb 'verify' and details the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on post-release structural integrity checks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to run this after every chapter release as final sign-off, and specifies what it does not verify, directing users to use Whisper tiny for language verification and manual review for semantic correctness.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/paulmichaelstafford/cwmcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server