Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chorono

Chorono

by codie1982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_layer

Removes a layer from a Chorono scene by layer ID to clean up or reorganize animation content.

Instructions

Remove a layer from the scene.

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": {
      "layerId": "<layerId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerIdYesID of the layer to delete
requestIdNo
sessionIdNo
expectedRevisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, which the description does not build on. It never states that the deletion is irreversible, whether children/keyframes on the layer are destroyed, or how expectedRevision conflicts are handled. For a destructive mutation this is a substantial disclosure gap.

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 or redundancy. It is appropriately tight, though the terseness leaves behavior and parameters unaddressed rather than being wasteful.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, four-parameter mutation with 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what happens to dependent data, what the optional parameters do, or how to handle revision conflicts.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%: layerId is documented, but requestId, sessionId, and expectedRevision are bare. The description adds no meaning for any of them, notably the concurrency role of expectedRevision, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Remove a layer from the scene"), so the agent knows exactly what is deleted. It does not differentiate the tool from nearby siblings such as clear_scene, delete_timeline, or ungroup_layer, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives like clear_scene or ungroup_layer, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb 'Remove'.

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