Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chorono

Chorono

by codie1982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

add_particle_emitter

Add a particle emitter to a Chorono animation using presets like confetti, sparkle, smoke, fire, snow, or rain; override count, duration, loop, or position for custom effects.

Instructions

Add a particle emitter. Pick a preset by friendly name — confetti, sparkle, magic, smoke, fire, snow, rain, rocket — then optionally override count / durationMs / loop / position. Use for "confetti", "fireworks", "falling snow", etc.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNoEmitter X position in px
yNoEmitter Y position in px
idYesUnique layer id e.g. "confetti_1"
loopNoRepeat continuously
nameNoDisplay name
countNoMax simultaneous particles
presetNoParticle preset
requestIdNo
sessionIdNo
durationMsNoEmitter run time in ms
expectedRevisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. Listing presets and the optional override set (count/durationMs/loop/position) tells the agent what effects to expect and that overrides are supported. It does not say what happens to the scene, whether the emitter is returned as a layer, or whether requestId/expectedRevision provide idempotency or revision-conflict semantics.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the action and presets, then the override options and examples. Minor redundancy in re-listing all eight preset names that already appear in the enum.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the happy path but omits the required id, return behavior, and any distinction from configure_particles. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to invoke correctly on the first try in ambiguous cases.

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 73%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description restates the preset names and the count/durationMs/loop/position overrides, adding only the 'pick a preset first, then override' mental model. It leaves id (required), name, requestId, sessionId and expectedRevision unaddressed.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a particle emitter') and enumerates the available presets, so an agent knows exactly what gets created. It never mentions the sibling tool configure_particles, so it does not differentiate create-vs-edit behavior.

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?

It gives concrete usage contexts ('confetti', 'fireworks', 'falling snow') which helps an agent recognize the right scenario. However, it offers no when-not guidance or alternative routing, notably the presence of configure_particles as a sibling for modifying an existing emitter.

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