Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASCII Motion MCP

ASCII Motion MCP

by CameronFoxly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

remove_keyframe

Remove a specified keyframe from a layer's property track. Identify the layer, track, and keyframe to delete for precise animation control.

Instructions

Remove a keyframe from a property track.

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": {
      "layerId": "<layerId>",
      "trackId": "<trackId>",
      "keyframeId": "<keyframeId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_keyframe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerIdYesLayer ID
trackIdYesProperty track ID
keyframeIdYesKeyframe ID to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.4

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Remove a keyframe.' No mention of side effects, reversibility, or whether the keyframe must exist. Essential transparency missing.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, concise but lacking detail. It conveys the core action but omits context needed for correct usage.

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?

For a tool with 3 required IDs and no output schema, the description should explain relationships (e.g., keyframeId must belong to trackId within layerId) and provide context, which is entirely missing.

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 covers all 3 params with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but doesn't need to given coverage.

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 ('Remove') and the resource ('a keyframe from a property track'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_effect_keyframe or remove_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_effect_keyframe for effect keyframes). No context about prerequisites or typical workflow.

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