List visible animations, optionally filtered by template or IDs.
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": "list_animations"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| templateId | No | ||
| animationIds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish this as a non-destructive, read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds that only 'visible' animations are returned, which is useful behavioral context, but it never explains what visibility means or how results are ordered or paged.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and has no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple listing tool, though the undefined term 'visible' slightly reduces clarity.
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 two-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, this is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless leaves relevant gaps around visibility semantics, default result scope, and filter interaction.
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%, so the description must carry meaning, and it at least clarifies that templateId and animationIds are optional filters. However, it does not explain whether both filters can be combined, what happens when both are supplied, or the maxItems limit embedded in the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List visible animations', with optional filtering by template or IDs. It distinguishes a multi-item listing operation from the singular sibling get_animation, though it does not explicitly name that alternative or define what 'visible' means.
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?
The optional filter wording hints at when to supply templateId or animationIds, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing this tool over get_animation or other list_* siblings. No when-not-to-use conditions or filter-combination guidance are provided.
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.