Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Subframe Motion

by com.subframe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search Motion Examples

search_motion_examples
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Subframe Motion Library for React animation examples. Describe what you want in plain words — the effect, the element, how it should feel, or, when matching a screenshot, what it looks like and what moves ('glowing border sweeping around a dark pricing card', 'playful press feedback for a like button', 'calm shader background behind a headline'). Results come most relevant first, with how each one looks; call get_motion_example with a slug for its code. If nothing fits closely, the result says so. Search reads plain language but not negations, so put hard constraints in the filters (runtime react means no animation library). Leave the query empty to browse a category or runtime.

Tool call template

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": "search_motion_examples"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many examples to return. Ask for more when you want variety to choose from.
queryNoWhat you're looking for, in plain words. Omit to browse.
runtimeNoOnly return examples built this way: react needs only React, motion also needs the motion package, webgl draws with WebGL.
categoryNoOnly return this category.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substantive behavior: results are relevance-ordered, each carries a visual description, a weak match is signaled in the result ("If nothing fits closely, the result says so"), and negation is not parsed. Those are traits an agent could not recover from the annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is dense and front-loaded: the purpose lands in the first sentence and the follow-up sentences are all actionable rather than restatements. It reads as one long run-on paragraph whose final sentence mixes three separate rules (empty query, no negations, filters for constraints), which costs a little scannability.

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?

For a four-parameter, mostly-optional search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing: query strategy, filter semantics, ordering, empty-query browsing, and failure-to-match signaling are all covered. No return-value documentation is needed here since no output schema exists and results are described qualitatively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining interaction between parameters — query and filters are complements, hard constraints belong in filters ("runtime react means no animation library"), and an empty query turns the call into a browse. It doesn't touch `limit`, but the schema already advises asking for more for variety.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the Subframe Motion Library for React animation examples") and explicitly routes code retrieval to get_motion_example, so the agent can separate searching from fetching. The scope — a curated animation example library queried in plain language — is unambiguous.

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?

Tells the agent when to use free-text query (describe effect, element, feel, or screenshot contents), when to use filters instead ("put hard constraints in the filters"), when to leave the query empty ("to browse a category or runtime"), and names the sibling to call for code. It even names a limitation — plain language but not negations — and gives the correct workaround.

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

All Subframe Motion toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources