Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chorono

Chorono

by codie1982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

describe_timeline

Read-only

Lists a timeline's tracks and keyframes, including targets, times, and values, so you can inspect animation structure and keyframe data.

Instructions

List a timeline's tracks and their keyframes (target, times, values).

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": {
      "timelineId": "<timelineId>"
    },
    "name": "describe_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestIdNo
sessionIdNo
timelineIdYesTimeline id
expectedRevisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (tracks, keyframe targets, times, values), but says nothing about size/pagination limits or how expectedRevision affects the call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical enumerating return fields; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape. However, three of four parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and the expectedRevision parameter in particular needs explanation an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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% — just timelineId is described ("Timeline id"). The description adds no meaning for requestId (maxLength 128), sessionId, or expectedRevision, whose concurrency/consistency semantics are the least obvious of the four and go entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: "List a timeline's tracks and their keyframes" and even enumerates the returned fields (target, times, values). This clearly separates it from list_timelines (which enumerates timelines) and from describe_layer (which targets a layer), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives such as list_timelines, get_scene_json, or evaluate_at_time, and no stated prerequisites. The read/inspection intent is only implied by the verb "List".

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