convert_levelConverts an OpenToonz level to a new destination using tconverter and refuses existing files to prevent overwrite prompts or data loss.
Convert a level with tconverter into a new destination. Existing files are refused to avoid interactive overwrite prompts and accidental data loss.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| frameEnd | No | ||
| scenePath | No | ||
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| frameStart | No | ||
| sourcePath | Yes | ||
| destinationPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that existing files are refused to avoid overwrite prompts and accidental data loss, which is important safety context for a mutation tool, but it omits dependencies such as tconverter availability, permission requirements, side effects, and failure behavior.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important details unstated.
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?
With seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It covers the overwrite-refusal behavior but not parameter meanings, prerequisites, or expected results.
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% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Level' and 'destination' only loosely imply sourcePath and destinationPath, while width, frameStart, frameEnd, scenePath, and timeoutMs receive no explanation at all.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a level ... into a new destination.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate the tool from any sibling, such as render_scene or render_preview, which could be confused with conversion-adjacent operations.
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?
The only usage-relevant statement is 'Existing files are refused,' which is a constraint rather than guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when conversion is appropriate instead of other level/scene operations, or how it relates to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.