Analyze a rig and its animation data, including contacts, curves, root, balance and motion, to produce an ordered, non-mutating correction plan before you edit.
Analyze rig, Action, contacts, quaternion/F-Curves, root, balance and motion; recommend ordered corrections without mutation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| object_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's claim 'without mutation' directly conflicts with the readOnlyHint: false annotation, which signals that the tool may modify state. This contradiction misleads the agent about side effects, so behavioral transparency is severely compromised.
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?
A single efficient sentence that front-loads the analysis scope and ends with the non-mutation qualifier. It is compact, though the critical 'without mutation' constraint is tucked at the end rather than upfront.
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?
The tool is complex (multi-aspect analysis with ordered recommendations) and has an output schema, so return values needn't be described. However, the description omits what the plan contains, how corrections are ordered, what options do, and contradicts the annotation, leaving the agent without key behavioral context.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters (object_name and options). It does neither; the list of analysis targets does not map to any parameter meaning, leaving the agent unable to infer what object_name refers to or what options controls.
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 uses specific verbs 'Analyze' and 'recommend ordered corrections' and enumerates the exact analysis targets (rig, Action, contacts, quaternion/F-Curves, root, balance, motion). It clearly identifies a multi-aspect analysis/planning tool, but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling analysis tools like animation_analyze_contacts or animation_refine_balance, so it falls short of a 5.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis and refinement tools. The phrase 'recommend ordered corrections' hints at a pre-mutation planning step, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.