Skip to main content
Glama
LE-VAI

Designesy

by LE-VAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Validate Lottie animation

designesy_motion_score
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate one Lottie animation file against the Designesy motion contract, checking required fields, easing, duration, and reduced-motion support; returns PASS/FAIL/WARN results and a score.

Instructions

Validate one Lottie animation file against the Designesy motion contract: its ten checks (m01-m10), drawn from the Lottie spec v1.0.1 and the Designesy §16 Ten Non-Negotiable Motion Standards. Each check returns PASS, FAIL, WARN or SKIP under the contract's own name for its id: m01 the schema's top-level animation object (layer contents are not validated, so a clean file returns SKIP, not PASS), m02 the required fields (v, fr, ip, op, w, h, layers), m03 no deprecated 4.x Bodymovin version, m04 a markers array, m05 a meta object, m06 a reduced-motion path (a marker or slot named for it, or a meta note of an external prefers-reduced-motion wrapper), m07 keyframe easing (linear, ease and ease-in curves fail), m08 duration within 300 ms (longer returns WARN, since a justification cannot be read from a file), m09 layout-property animation and m10 keyboard-initiated motion (both SKIP: they concern the page that embeds the file). Use this to check that a motion asset is well formed and carries reduced-motion support. When NOT to use: for the motion CSS of a whole site, use designesy_score. Executable: fetches the URL or parses the inline JSON; no browser needed. Score: PASS=1, WARN=0.5, FAIL=0, SKIP is not scored; points / scored checks x 100. Returns JSON: { contract_id, contract_version, contract_status, url, lottie_version, layer_count, score (0-100), grade (A-F), pass_count, fail_count, warn_count, skip_count, scoring, checks[{id (m01-m10), name, status (PASS, FAIL, WARN or SKIP), detail}], ten_non_negotiable, provenance, validator_note }. Pass url to fetch a remote Lottie file, or lottie_file to validate an inline JSON string. Provide exactly one.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoURL to a Lottie JSON file. The tool fetches and validates it.
lottie_fileNoRaw Lottie JSON string to validate (alternative to url).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.13.8

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: which checks are executable vs. SKIP, why m08 returns WARN instead of FAIL, why m09/m10 skip, the PASS/WARN/FAIL/SKIP scoring formula, and that no browser is needed. It even inlines the full return-object shape, which is unusually generous given no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then checks, then usage boundary, then mechanics — a logical order with zero filler sentences. It is admittedly dense and long, and the m01-m10 list is partly redundant with the checks[] return description, which keeps it short of a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read-only validator with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: input mode selection, per-check semantics including the non-obvious SKIP/WARN rationale, the scoring formula, and the full response field list. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating the mutual-exclusivity rule ('Provide exactly one') and clarifying that url triggers a fetch while lottie_file parses inline JSON — a constraint the flat schema cannot express on its own.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource — 'Validate one Lottie animation file against the Designesy motion contract' — and immediately enumerates the ten checks (m01-m10) it runs, so the agent knows exactly what the tool inspects. It also differentiates itself from the sibling designesy_score, which handles site-wide motion CSS rather than a single asset.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Contains an explicit 'Use this to...' statement plus a 'When NOT to use' clause routing the agent to designesy_score for whole-site motion CSS. It further constrains invocation with 'Pass url..., or lottie_file... Provide exactly one,' leaving no ambiguity about when and how to call it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools