Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Creatomate MCP Server

Creatomate MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Review an exact render batch

preview_render_batch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate up to 10 ordered render requests locally, bind them with the selected profile to a SHA-256 approval hash, and display proposed calls before submission. No keys or rendering.

Instructions

Local only: validate ordered payloads and bind them plus selected profile to SHA-256. Display proposed calls and hash; no key load, dry run, provider price or actual rendering. Review cannot prove the key owner, credit cost or external template changes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "renders": "<renders>"
    },
    "name": "preview_render_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoExact private project profile label; no inherited/global key fallback.
rendersYesExactly one to ten ordered v2 requests; all validated before any provider request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), yet the description adds real value: it discloses that this performs no key load, no dry run, no provider pricing and no rendering, and states the tool's evidentiary limits. Disclosing what the review cannot prove is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight sentences with the scoping constraint ('Local only') front-loaded and no filler. It is telegraphic and jargon-heavy, but every clause carries distinct information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only, fully-schema-documented tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key context an agent needs: local-only behavior, the hash binding, and the limits of what the review proves. Return values are the one omission, acceptable given no output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents account and renders thoroughly (ordering, 1-10 items, template_id vs elements). The description only reframes these as 'ordered payloads' and 'selected profile', adding little beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource: validate ordered payloads and bind them plus the selected profile to SHA-256, then display the proposed calls and hash. The scope ('Local only', no rendering) makes it distinguishable from submit_render_batch, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the negatives ('no key load, dry run, provider price or actual rendering'), which tells an agent this is a pre-submission review, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit 'use this before X' instruction. The validate_render.dry_run crossover is only hinted at in the schema, not routed in the description.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools