Get an animation by ID, including frames and exclusions.
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": {
"animationId": "<animationId>"
},
"name": "get_animation"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| animationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes frames and exclusions, which is useful, but it does not explain behavior for missing IDs, permissions, or the return structure.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Every clause contributes to identifying the resource and the returned content.
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 simple read-only tool with annotations, this is adequate but incomplete. Because there is no output schema, the description should say more about the shape of frames/exclusions and what happens when an ID is not found.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter is documented only by the phrase 'by ID'. The description does not clarify where animation IDs come from, whether they correspond to list_animations results, or any additional constraints beyond the schema's positive-integer rule.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: get an animation by ID. It also mentions the returned content (frames and exclusions), which helps distinguish this from list_animations, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or contrast with update_animation.
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?
Usage is only implied: call this when you already have an animation ID. There is no explicit guidance that list_animations should be used to discover IDs, nor any stated failure or exclusion conditions.
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.