Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASCII Motion MCP

ASCII Motion MCP

by CameronFoxly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

export_json

Export an ASCII art project as structured JSON data for programmatic processing. Optionally save to file or include project metadata.

Instructions

Export the project as structured JSON data. Good for programmatic processing.

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": "export_json"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathNoFile path to save to (relative to project dir). If omitted, returns content only.
includeMetadataNoInclude project metadata
humanReadableNoPretty-print JSON
includeEmptyCellsNoInclude cells with default values

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.4

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether writing to file (filePath) is destructive or overwrites existing files, nor does it describe permissions or side effects. The read-only nature of export is assumed but not confirmed.

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 sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second adds context. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format when filePath is omitted, nor does it address safety or behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the action ('Export the project as structured JSON data') and the use case ('Good for programmatic processing'), distinguishing it from sibling export tools like export_ansi or export_html.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use (programmatic processing need), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool.

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