Retrieve ready-to-use animation snippets for spring physics, mouse spotlight, 3D tilt, particle canvas, and Lenis smooth scroll for web projects.
Retorna física de molas, spotlight seguidor de mouse, tilt 3D, canvas de partículas e Lenis scroll.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset_id | Yes | ID do preset: 'spring-snappy', 'spring-gentle', 'mouse-spotlight', 'tilt-3d', 'scroll-lenis', 'particle-canvas'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says the tool 'returns' various animation types, signaling a read operation, but it does not disclose the output format, whether the result is a code snippet string or object, or any side effects or prerequisites.
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 compact sentence with no filler and is easy to scan. It front-loads the returned artifact types, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the output as an animation snippet.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and the schema fully documents that parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should more clearly state what form the returned animation snippet takes; the current list only hints at it. It is minimally adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.
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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already enumerates all preset IDs, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases those presets in human-friendly terms, which adds some selection context, but it provides no syntactic or behavioral detail beyond what the schema already offers.
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 states a concrete verb ('Retorna' – returns) and enumerates the artifact types it provides: spring physics, mouse-following spotlight, 3D tilt, particle canvas, and Lenis scroll. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools that deal with vaults, templates, prompts, and design systems, though it never explicitly names the resource as an 'animation snippet' or 'preset'.
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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool routing is provided. The purpose must be inferred entirely from the content list and tool name, with no direct statement about when an agent should choose this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.