Run a complete three-layer review (script + storyboards + frames) in one free pass. Use before production or delivery to catch issues, but run layer-specific reviews first because this tool emits no review token.
(推荐·免费)三层一次跑完的整体体检:剧本+分镜+镜头图片。开工前摸底、交付前复查用。★它不发 review_token —— 进收费步前仍需对应层的 review_script / review_storyboards / review_frames 各跑一次(闸认的是「针对当前产出物刚审过」,不是「审过一次」)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| episode_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the critical behavioral trait: review_all does not issue a review_token, and explains the semantic difference between 'already reviewed once' and 'just reviewed for the current deliverable'. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or return format, but the '体检' framing and token caveat cover the most important operational behavior.
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?
The description is compact and front-loads purpose and usage before the token caveat. Promotional elements like '(推荐·免费)' and '★★' add mild noise, but every substantive 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 description gives purpose, use cases, and the critical token caveat, which is a strong foundation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits both the return-value behavior and any guidance about the sole parameter, leaving noticeable gaps despite the low complexity of the tool.
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 only parameter, episode_id, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent receives no additional meaning about how episode_id relates to review_all beyond the schema's bare integer type and exclusiveMinimum constraint.
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 explicitly states the tool's action: running all three review layers — script, storyboards, and shot frames — in one pass. It also distinguishes itself from the individual review_script / review_storyboards / review_frames siblings by positioning review_all as the combined check.
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 gives clear use cases: '开工前摸底、交付前复查用' (pre-work assessment, pre-delivery review). It also explicitly explains when NOT to rely on it — it issues no review_token, so the per-layer review tools must still be run before paid steps. This is strong, unambiguous routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.