Skip to main content
Glama

Make a shot candidate

create_candidate

Generate a shot candidate picture or clip for a specific shot in a faceless video run, to keep or discard later. Call quote_candidate first to see the price.

Instructions

Make a shot candidate of a run made by make_faceless (paid): a NEW run of skill edit_shot that generates one picture or clip for one shot, to keep or discard in a later revision. Call quote_candidate first and show the user the price. A delivered candidate is charged its one unit whether it is kept or discarded; one that fails is charged nothing, even when its paid work was already done. An identical request returns the same run it started before, so a call repeated after a lost answer starts nothing new; to make another candidate with the same request on purpose, pass take 2. An original has a limit on candidates running at once and on candidates failed or unfinished, apart from its revisions; a refusal names which. While shot candidates are closed it answers editing_disabled and charges nothing. The result is a new run: poll it with get_run; once it succeeded, its candidate.preview_url shows what was made.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
takeNoTake number, 1 by default: the same request and take return the same run; take 2 makes another candidate.
run_idYesThe faceless run whose shot the candidate is for: a succeeded original or revision.
shot_idYesThe shot to make a candidate for, as get_run_shots names it.
operationYesWhat to generate: one of the operations get_run_shots lists for the shot.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.29.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It discloses billing semantics (charged one unit whether kept or discarded; failures charged nothing), idempotency behavior (identical request returns the prior run), concurrency/failure limits on the original, the editing_disabled refusal, and the async result contract (new run, poll with get_run, candidate.preview_url).

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?

Purpose and the quote_candidate prerequisite are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries operational information (price, charge rules, idempotency, limits). It is a dense single-paragraph wall of text, though, so scanning cost is higher than ideal.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully: it says the result is a new run, how to poll it, and where the artifact appears (candidate.preview_url), plus pricing and failure-charge rules. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already carries the per-parameter detail and baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond it by explaining why take exists (idempotency; take 2 forces a duplicate) and framing run_id as a succeeded original or revision, reinforcing rather than restating the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a shot candidate ... a NEW run of skill edit_shot that generates one picture or clip for one shot') and explicitly distinguishes itself from make_faceless (which makes the run) and quote_candidate (which prices it). An agent can tell this apart from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Call quote_candidate first and show the user the price'), names the polling tool (get_run) and the shot-listing tool (get_run_shots), and states the escape hatch for deliberate re-runs ('pass take 2'). Refusal/closed states (limits, editing_disabled) tell the agent when the call cannot succeed.

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