Analyze SVG files or raw SVG content to detect CSS keyframe animations, estimate animation duration, and extract viewBox dimensions before conversion.
Analyze an SVG file or raw SVG content to detect CSS keyframe animations, estimate duration, and extract viewBox dimensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| svgContent | No | Raw SVG content to inspect. | |
| svgFilePath | No | Path to the .svg file to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.27.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Analyze/inspect' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and it discloses the returned facts (animations, duration, viewBox), which is useful. However, it says nothing about write behavior, failure modes on malformed SVG, or what happens when both inputs are supplied.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before listing outputs. No filler, though it could have used the space to disambiguate the two input modes.
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 no output schema, the description does useful work by naming the three returned values, and read-only semantics are implied. But it omits the input-mode selection rule and any error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an inspector tool with two optional parameters.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only that input may be a file or raw content; it does not clarify precedence or mutual exclusivity between svgContent and svgFilePath, which is the key semantic ambiguity for this tool.
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 names a specific verb (analyze) and resource (SVG file or raw SVG content) and even enumerates the three analytic outputs (CSS keyframe animations, duration, viewBox). It is clearly distinct from render_svg_to_video, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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?
It implies the tool is for inspection rather than rendering, but gives no when-to-use conditions, no statement on when to prefer raw content vs. a file path, and no exclusions relative to render_svg_to_video. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.