Jump to a specific frame, define animation start and end, and control playback speed.
Jump to a frame and/or set the animation range and playback speed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| fps | No | ||
| frame | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| response_format | No | 'markdown' for readable output, 'json' for raw structured data. | json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as how the current frame is changed, whether the range is set as a persistent state, or any side effects on playback. With annotations present, the description should still add value, but it doesn't.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary actions. There is no fluff or redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
For a tool with five optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., what happens if frame is set while start/end are also set), does not describe expected return values (no output schema), and provides no details on how null values are handled. The description covers only the high-level purpose, leaving an agent without enough context to call it correctly in varied situations.
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 only 20%, with only response_format described. The description implies that 'frame' relates to jumping, 'start' and 'end' to the animation range, and 'fps' to playback speed, which adds some meaning. However, it does not clarify relationships between parameters, default behavior when null, or units, leaving gaps that the description only partially fills.
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 clearly states the tool jumps to a frame and/or sets animation range and playback speed, with specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling animation tools like blender_insert_keyframe or blender_animation_info, so it misses the opportunity to distinguish itself.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_insert_keyframe or blender_animation_info. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues about when this is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.