Chalkcast

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_step

Append a timed beat to a Chalkcast animation scene, specifying write, transform, highlight, fade, camera move, or wait steps with duration and targets.

Instructions

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "add_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`kind`	Yes
`note`	No
`zoom`	No
`focus_x`	No
`focus_y`	No
`targets`	No
`duration`	No
`scene_id`	No
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Append') and describes two kind-specific behaviors, but omits persistence, ordering, project/scene context, side effects, and what happens to existing steps. That is a significant gap for a 10-parameter mutation tool.

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?

The definition is two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the kind enumeration and the most important kind-specific parameter routing.

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?

The tool is a 10-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers only a fraction of the parameters and omits core context such as scene/project binding, duration semantics, and targets. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input-side gaps remain substantial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the kind values, `to` for transform, and zoom/focus for camera_move, but note, targets, duration, scene_id, project_id, and focus_x/focus_y remain unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Append a timed beat.' The kind enumeration clarifies the domain (write, transform, highlight, fade, camera_move, wait). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like add_scene or add_text, but the purpose itself is clear.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for two kinds ('For transform, set to...'; 'For camera_move, set zoom/focus'), but never says when to use add_step versus alternatives like add_scene, add_shape, or add_text. There are no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server