storyboard_saveValidate a project storyboard and persist its planned scenes for later rendering. Confirm scene structure before animation production.
Validate and persist a storyboard and its planned scenes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| storyboard | Yes | Validated storyboard produced by the host LLM. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clips | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| total_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait beyond the name — the payload is validated before being persisted, so invalid storyboards will be rejected — but says nothing about overwrite/replace semantics for an existing storyboard, idempotency, or what a validation failure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single eight-word sentence with zero waste and the operative verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness edges toward under-specification rather than optimal economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a write operation with a deeply nested payload, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values needn't be explained). Given the complexity, essential context is missing: whether saving replaces an existing storyboard, how validation failures surface, and where this fits relative to scene_write and the render/build siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%: the required top-level 'project_id' and 'storyboard' properties have no schema descriptions, while nested clip/beat properties are documented. The description adds nothing about either required parameter — not what project_id scopes, nor that 'storyboard' is the same nested shape produced by a planning step.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb pair ('validate and persist') and a specific resource ('a storyboard and its planned scenes'), which distinguishes it from scene_write (single scene) in the sibling list. However, it never names a sibling or states the relationship to the storyboard-planning flow, leaving differentiation implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. With siblings like scene_write, project_build, and project_render_batch in the same list, an agent gets no signal about whether saving a storyboard is a required step before building, or what to do if a storyboard already exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.