Skip to main content
Glama

Add zoom path

add_zoom_path

PROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. A ZOOM THAT MOVES — THE tool for 'make the zoom follow the cursor' / 'move the zoom between buttons' / 'stay zoomed and then move to the next thing' on ANY footage, including a screen recording the user made themselves. Any request where ONE zoom should hold, travel, or visit several subjects in sequence is THIS tool — never a chain of static add_zoom calls, which cut out and back instead of moving. keyframes is a list of at least two points, each {t, rect, strength} or {t, cx, cy, strength}: t is OUTPUT-timeline seconds; rect=[x0,y0,x1,y1] FRAMES the thing to look at there (fractions of the frame from look_at's grid — the same solver as add_zoom rect, so edge subjects come out framed, and omitting strength on a rect keyframe picks the strength that fits it); cx/cy instead PIN a point ((0,0) = top-left). strength 0-4.5 interpolates between keyframes, so the frame can push in as it arrives and ease out as it leaves; to HOLD on a subject, repeat its keyframe at the hold's start and end times. The window runs from the first t to the last. NO ramp is added at the edges: give the first and last keyframe strength 0 for a seamless entry and exit (a strength-0 rect keyframe still aims where the move is going). ease: 'cubic_in_out' (default — settles at each keyframe, the right answer for stopping at buttons) or 'linear' (constant speed, for a steady scan across a wide screenshot). It re-anchors across later cuts exactly like add_zoom, so cutting elsewhere never strands it. Remove the whole move with remove_zoom_path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
easeNo
purposeNo
keyframesYes
project_idYesRequired immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess.
motion_motifNoActive Blueprint motion motif id this event executes; never 'hold'.
target_evidence_idsNo

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 indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) with no destructive hint, and the description aligns by describing a mutating effect. It discloses key behaviors: acts only on explicit project_id, interpolates between keyframes, holds by repeating keyframes, adds no ramp at edges, and re-anchors across cuts. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long but densely packed with necessary details. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidance, then systematically explains parameters and edge cases. While it could be trimmed, every sentence contributes to correct usage for a complex tool. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to length.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and complex keyframe semantics, the description is remarkably complete. It covers parameter formats, interpolation behavior, hold strategies, easing options, edge-case handling, and even cleanup (remove_zoom_path). An agent has enough to call it correctly without further lookup.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains keyframes (structure, t, rect/cx/cy, strength semantics, hold behavior) and ease values. It also clarifies project_id as explicit scope. However, it does not explain purpose, motion_motif, or target_evidence_ids, which remain underdocumented. Given the critical parameters are covered, a 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair and clearly defines the tool's niche: moving a single zoom across multiple subjects in sequence, contrasted with static add_zoom calls. It even gives example phrasings ('make the zoom follow the cursor') and differentiates from add_zoom and remove_zoom_path.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (one zoom that holds, travels, or visits several subjects) and when not (never a chain of static add_zoom calls). It also names the removal counterpart (remove_zoom_path). This gives the agent clear decision criteria without opening other tool schemas.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.