Retrieve the motion templates created for a drama by its ID, enabling review and reuse of camera and movement presets in production.
读该剧已有的动作模板(运镜/动作预设)。generate_motion_templates 生成、此工具读取。免费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drama_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. '此工具读取' conveys read-only behavior and '免费' adds a cost signal, but the description does not mention return format, pagination, or possible failure modes. It is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, sibling differentiation, and a cost note with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple: one required integer parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description explains what it reads and how it relates to the sibling generator. A return-shape description would improve completeness, but for this low-complexity tool the definition is largely sufficient.
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?
The input schema has one parameter, drama_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description contains '该剧', which implies drama_id identifies the drama, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's role or format. The parameter is simple enough to infer, but the description adds only marginal value over the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb (读取/read) with a clear resource (existing motion templates for a drama) and states the per-drama scope. It also explicitly contrasts itself with generate_motion_templates, so an agent can distinguish the two tools immediately.
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?
The description names the sibling generate_motion_templates and states the read-vs-generate relationship, which is clear usage guidance. It does not elaborate on when one should prefer reading over generating, but the distinction is strong enough for typical cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.