Adds an action clip as an NLA strip on a specified NLA track for an object. Sets the start frame and blend type to integrate the action into the animation timeline.
在 NLA 轨道上添加动作片段。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| blend_type | No | ||
| frame_start | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It merely states that an action strip is added, without noting any side effects, requirements (e.g., the object must have an action assigned), or whether the operation is reversible. It does not contradict annotations since none exist, but it is insufficiently transparent.
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, which is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It earns a middle score because while it is efficient, it lacks substance for a tool with multiple parameters.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, any constraints, or what happens after execution. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation or API details.
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 0%, meaning the description mentions none of the five parameters. The schema itself has sparse documentation (only titles and defaults), so the description fails to explain what 'track', 'action', 'object', 'blend_type', or 'frame_start' mean or how they interact. This is a critical gap for a tool with required parameters.
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 '在 NLA 轨道上添加动作片段' clearly states the action (add), the resource (action strip), and the location (NLA track). It is specific enough to distinguish from many siblings, though it doesn't elaborate on what an 'action' means in this context. It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct operation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nla_push_down or bake_animation. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and generic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.