網頁動畫功能瀏覽器支援版本：View Transitions、捲動驅動動畫、linear()、@starting-style、Web Animations API。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "animation_browser_support"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the response actually contains (per-browser version tables? support flags? caveats?) or that it is a static, read-only reference with no side effects. Only the topic list hints at content.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the naming list occupies most of the text and there is no second sentence to add value.
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?
For a zero-parameter informational tool with no annotations or output schema, the description identifies the subject matter well but omits what the returned data looks like or how comprehensive it is. Adequate but with a clear gap around output expectations.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters.
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 names a specific resource (browser support versions for web animation features) and enumerates the covered technologies (View Transitions, scroll-driven animations, linear(), @starting-style, Web Animations API), making it distinguishable from siblings like generate_keyframes or generate_easing. No explicit verb (get/list), but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (animation_a11y_checklist, compare_animation_libraries, etc.), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer that it is a reference lookup rather than a generator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.