Add an NLA track to any object to layer and organize animation clips. Provide the object name and optional track name to create the track.
Add an NLA track to an object for layering animation clips.
Args: object_name: Target object with animation data. name: Name for the new track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | NlaTrack | |
| object_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states that a track is added. It does not explain side effects, whether an existing track with the same name is replaced, failure conditions, or what happens if the object lacks animation data.
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 brief, front-loaded, and uses a clean Args format. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan, though the parameter list partially duplicates the schema.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema envelope. The description provides the minimum for calling it but lacks information about naming constraints, existing track behavior, prerequisites beyond 'animation data,' and expected return or failure outcomes.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide short semantics for both parameters: object_name is 'Target object with animation data' and name is 'Name for the new track.' This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema but leaves edge-case behavior undocumented.
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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Add an NLA track to an object' and adds context ('for layering animation clips'). This is enough to distinguish it from the sibling add_nla_strip, though the distinction is not explicitly named.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_nla_strip or other animation tools. The only context clue is 'Target object with animation data,' which implies a prerequisite but does not state when to choose this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.