Retrieve keyframe mappings and usage examples for a CSS animation slug, or fetch the animate/animate-on SCSS mixin record by name.
Return one animation slug → keyframe mapping with usage examples, or the animate/animate-on mixin record by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Animation slug (e.g. "fade-in") or mixin name ("animate", "animate-on"). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is returned (keyframe mapping with usage examples, or a mixin record), which is genuinely useful, but omits any error/missing-name behavior or other operational traits.
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, front-loaded with the verb and return payload. It is dense but wastes little, though the dual-mode phrasing reads slightly awkwardly.
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 usefully explains the return shape (keyframe mapping plus usage examples, or a mixin record). This covers the main gap for a one-parameter lookup, though overlapping behavior with get_mixin remains unaddressed.
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% and the single `name` parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the slug-or-mixin-name duality without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.
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?
States a specific verb ("Return") and the resource it retrieves (an animation slug→keyframe mapping with usage examples). It clarifies the dual lookup mode (slug or mixin name), but does not differentiate from siblings like get_mixin, which it partially overlaps with by also returning mixin records.
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?
Implies usage by describing the two lookup modes (animation slug vs. mixin name), giving some context for when the tool applies. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, leaving the get_mixin vs. get_animation boundary ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.