Skip to main content
Glama

Clipform

by io.github.Clipform

Attach Node Media

clipform_attach_node_media
DestructiveIdempotent

Attach an existing workspace media asset (from clipform_upload_media_asset) to one or more nodes (max 10). Pass one item or many; multiple items attach sequentially. Only works on node types that support media (choice, open, scale, draw, binary, button). A media asset is reusable - attach the same media_asset_id to several nodes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesOne or more attachments to make
contextYesDescribe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.
form_idYesThe form UUID (returned by clipform_create_form, not the short share_id from the URL)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYesOne result per item, in order

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "form_id",
-  "items"
-]New value: +[
+  "form_id",
+  "items",
+  "context"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, destructive, non-read-only), the description adds useful behavioral context: multiple items attach sequentially, works only on media-supporting node types, and media assets are reusable. It does not disclose overwrite behavior or partial-failure semantics, but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, each adding a distinct, useful constraint: target and max count, sequential processing, and node-type/reusability limitations. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

The definition covers the key operational constraints an agent needs: supported node types, max items, source of the asset, and reuse behavior. With an output schema present and full parameter schema coverage, this is largely complete. A brief mention of overwrite or failure behavior would make it fully comprehensive.

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 already documents each parameter in detail. The description adds helpful context about the items array (sequential attachment, reusability, source of media_asset_id), but it does not need to repeat parameter-level meaning. A baseline 3 with mild value from the description is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific action ('attach an existing workspace media asset') with a clear target ('one or more nodes'), a max count, and the source tool. It clearly differentiates from related sibling tools like clipform_delete_node_media and clipform_get_node_media.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly names the prerequisite source tool (clipform_upload_media_asset) and constrains valid node types ('choice, open, scale, draw, binary, button'). It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Clipform toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: form CRUD, node management, media upload/attach, rendering, search, and guidance retrieval are all separable. The main overlap is among the three render tools (clipform_generate_video, clipform_render_video_template, clipform_render_composition), but their descriptions include explicit disambiguation guidance, so an agent can correctly choose. clipform_get_guide and clipform_get_workflow are also similar but clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent clipform_<verb>_<noun> pattern throughout, e.g., clipform_create_form, clipform_add_node, clipform_update_node, clipform_delete_node. Minor deviations exist: clipform_whoami is not verb_noun, and get_more_tools lacks the clipform_ prefix, but these are edge cases and the overall convention is highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the heavy side for a single MCP server. The server covers a broad domain (form creation, node editing, media management, video rendering, TTS, search, guidance, imports, responses), so the count is defensible, but it is above the typical well-scoped range and may add navigation overhead.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: create/read/update/delete forms and nodes, media upload/attach/delete, multiple render paths with status checking, TTS generation, music/image/video search, form import, response retrieval, and workflow/guide knowledge. The main gap is lack of a direct branching-logic editor (option-based branching is only in the dashboard), but the API consciously documents that limitation and the rest of the lifecycle is complete.

Resources