Skip to main content
Glama

Import a Lottie/bodymovin JSON as a Rive scene fragment (art + timing + easing)

riv_lottie_import

Convert Lottie (.json) animations into Rive scene fragments, preserving keyframed transforms, bezier easing, and layer hierarchy for direct use in Rive scenes.

Instructions

Convert a Lottie (bodymovin, .json) animation — the format used by LottieFiles' huge library of free, professionally animated assets — into a riv_create scene fragment. Unlike riv_import_svg (shapes only), this carries over the professional's actual choreography: keyframed position/rotation/scale/opacity with their exact bezier easing curves (not approximated to a named preset), shape/null/precomp layer hierarchy, solid layers, gradient fills, stroke trim-path animation, and layer in/out visibility windows. Writes a scene-fragment JSON with {groups,shapes,animations} plus a rendered preview and a coverage/warnings summary. Since the fragment includes animations (which riv_create's "imports" mechanism does not merge), splice its groups/shapes/animations arrays directly into your riv_create scene spec instead of using "imports". Supported: shape layers (path/ellipse/rect/star/polygon/fill/stroke/gradient/trim/nested groups), null layers, solid layers, one level of precomp inlining, parented layers, hold and bezier easing. Not imported (counted in coverage.skipped, not silently dropped): text layers, masks, track mattes, repeaters, merge-paths, path/gradient-position keyframe morphing (frozen to first frame + warning), time-remapped precomps, expressions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jsonNoInline Lottie JSON text (alternative to path)
pathNoPath to the Lottie .json file
outSpecYesOutput scene-fragment JSON path (e.g. anim.scene.json)
idPrefixNoPrefix for generated group/shape ids (avoid collisions)
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so thoroughly. It discloses output contents (groups, shapes, animations, preview, coverage/warnings), that unsupported features are counted in coverage.skipped rather than silently dropped, and that some animations are frozen with a warning. This is highly transparent.

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?

The description is long but front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes substantive detail. It could be improved with structured lists, but it avoids redundancy and only includes necessary information for a complex tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input format, output structure, integration approach, supported features, and explicitly delineated limitations, making it self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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 adds context about the output format but does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No additional per-parameter meaning is introduced.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: converting a Lottie JSON into a Rive scene fragment. It names the specific input (bodymovin .json), the output (riv_create scene fragment), and explicitly differentiates from sibling riv_import_svg by noting it preserves animation. This is a specific verb+resource+scope pairing.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it contrasts with riv_import_svg ('shapes only'), explains why the 'imports' mechanism is not suitable for animations, and instructs to splice arrays manually. It also lists what is and isn't supported, clarifying when this tool is appropriate and what to expect.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ODU33104/rive-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server