Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASCII Motion MCP

ASCII Motion MCP

by CameronFoxly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_effect_keyframe

Add a keyframe to a procedural effect property at a specific frame, creating the property track if needed.

Instructions

Add a keyframe to a procedural effect property. Creates the property track if it doesn't exist.

Tool call template

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": {
      "blockId": "<blockId>",
      "propertyPath": "<propertyPath>",
      "frame": "<frame>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "add_effect_keyframe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blockIdYesEffect block ID
propertyPathYesProperty path (e.g., "amplitude", "hue", "strength")
frameYesFrame number for the keyframe
valueYesKeyframe value

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.4

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the side effect of creating the property track if it doesn't exist, which is helpful. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error conditions, or any limitations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences that directly convey the core action and a key side effect. No redundant or extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the basic function and one behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on return values (no output schema), error handling, or use cases, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 clearly states it adds a keyframe to a procedural effect property and creates the property track if missing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_keyframe (which may be for other keyframe types) and add_content_frame.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_keyframe or apply_effect. It does not mention any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools