Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-for-cascadeur

mcp-for-cascadeur

by Rickcy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

timeline_get

Read-only

Read the current frame, stored animation size, and playback/visible boundaries to check timeline state before adjusting or reviewing animation.

Instructions

Read the current frame, stored animation size and playback/visible boundaries.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "timeline_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the set of values returned (current frame, size, boundaries). It does not state units, whether boundaries are in/out points or visible viewport range, or the response shape — information that matters more here because there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is close to too terse for a tool whose return values are not documented anywhere else, but every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-param read tool this is only just sufficient: it enumerates four pieces of data but leaves 'playback/visible boundaries' ambiguous and gives no output schema, units, or frame-rate context elsewhere. An agent knows roughly what it gets back but not how to interpret it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this is a 4. Nothing in the schema needs explaining, and the description does not waste space on parameter talk.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific verb (read) and a specific resource set (current frame, animation size, playback/visible boundaries). The read-vs-set contrast with sibling timeline_set_frame and timeline_set_range is inferable from the verb, but the description never states that contrast explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: it is obviously the way to inspect timeline state before calling timeline_set_frame or timeline_set_range. No when/when-not guidance is given, and no differentiation from neighbours such as playback_status or scene_info, which could plausibly report overlapping timing state.

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