Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASCII Motion MCP

ASCII Motion MCP

by CameronFoxly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_effect_blocks

List all procedural effect blocks across layers, groups, and global effects, including type, timing, enabled status, and keyframe count.

Instructions

List all procedural effect blocks across layers, groups, and global effects. Shows effect type, timing, enabled status, and keyframe count.

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": "get_effect_blocks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerIdNoFilter by owner layer/group ID. Omit to show all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and describes the return fields. It does not mention potential side effects or rate limits, but for a simple getter, the transparency is adequate.

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: first states the action and scope, second lists the returned information. No extra words, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description explains the output fields (type, timing, enabled status, keyframe count), which is helpful since there is no output schema. It covers the tool's functionality sufficiently for a simple listing, though it could mention ordering or pagination.

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% coverage for the single parameter ownerId, providing a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter details, but the schema already explains filtering. The description adds context about scope (layers, groups, global effects), but this is minor value beyond the schema.

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 lists procedural effect blocks across layers, groups, and global effects, and specifies what information is returned (type, timing, enabled status, keyframe count). This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_effect_block or remove_effect_block.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for listing/reviewing effects, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like add_effect_block or update_effect_block. No guidance on when not to use it.

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