spriteship

Mirror an animation horizontally

mirror_animation

FREE, no AI. Flip every cached frame of ONE animation horizontally and rebuild it — the cheap way to get walk_left from walk_right. NOT idempotent: calling it twice flips the animation back to its original orientation, so call it once and check the result before calling again. Frame count and order are preserved, so any frame selection stays valid. To keep BOTH directions, call duplicate_animation first and mirror the copy. Returns { jobId, mirrored } (frames flipped) — poll get_job.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`animation`	Yes	Animation slug to flip in place.
`characterId`	Yes	Character id.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate non-idempotent and non-read-only), the description adds critical behavioral details: the flip is applied in-place, calling twice reverts the animation, frame count/order are preserved, and the return shape is { jobId, mirrored }. It also mentions cost ('FREE, no AI'), which is useful context not in annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the critical info ('FREE, no AI'), then explains the action, the idempotency gotcha, the frame preservation, the alternative, and the return value. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is wasted or redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description explicitly states the return object and polling mechanism. It also covers the non-idempotency hazard and the workflow for keeping both directions. This makes the tool fully understood without needing extra documentation.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions (animation slug, character id) at 100% coverage. The description adds context about the effect on the animation (in-place, frame preservation) but does not introduce new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('flip every cached frame') and names the resource ('ONE animation'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like duplicate_animation. It also gives a concrete use case ('get walk_left from walk_right'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly warns about non-idempotency ('call it once and check the result before calling again') and provides an alternative for preserving both directions ('call duplicate_animation first and mirror the copy'). This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All spriteship tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions are extremely detailed with cross-references (e.g., animate_asset vs frame_animation vs generate_character_animation). A few pairs like reprocess_asset vs revise_asset could be confused initially, but their descriptions and use cases are explicit enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_project, get_asset, cancel_job). Verbs are imperative and nouns are appropriately singular/plural, making the API predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 41 tools, the server is far beyond the 15-25 range considered reasonable for most APIs. While the domain is broad (project, assets, characters, animations, jobs, exports, credits), the sheer number creates a heavy surface that may overwhelm agents and suggests the API could be consolidated into higher-level operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full creative pipeline: project creation, asset/character generation, animation (both AI and frame-based), revisions, exports, and job management. Minor gaps include lack of delete operations for assets/characters/projects and no listing of all jobs, but these are not critical for the core workflow and are likely intentional for a generative art platform.

Resources

Need Help?