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

mcp-for-cascadeur

by Rickcy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tracks_list

Read-only

Inspect native animation tracks, object membership, keyframes, and interpolation sections in Cascadeur to locate animation data and review section boundaries.

Instructions

Inspect native tracks, object membership, keys and interpolation sections.

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": "tracks_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_sectionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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 that the result surfaces track membership, keys, and interpolation data, which is useful. It does not disclose scope, volume, or whether output is bounded/paginated for scenes with many tracks.

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 lean, though the leanness comes partly at the cost of the missing routing and parameter detail.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves the parameter's effect and the listing's scope unstated, which an agent needs in order to call it confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single parameter include_sections has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only glancingly mentions 'interpolation sections' without explaining that the flag toggles their inclusion or what the default is. It does not compensate for the schema gap in any actionable way.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb is 'inspect' rather than a clear 'list', and the object is a loose enumeration ('native tracks, object membership, keys and interpolation sections') rather than a single resource. An agent can infer this enumerates animation tracks, but it is not clearly distinguished from siblings such as tracks_select_frames, tracks_retime, or object_inspect, which also deal with track data.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus tracks_set_keys, tracks_set_interpolation, or tracks_select_frames. No prerequisites, scoping (per scene? per object?), or exclusions are given, so the agent must guess from the name alone.

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