Chorono

by codie1982

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

export_sequence

Render a frame sequence ZIP of up to 300 frames from the Chorono editor, without audio. Use it to export animation timelines at a chosen frame rate.

Instructions

Render a frame sequence ZIP using the editor. Bounded to 300 frames per call. Does not include audio.

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": "export_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fps`	No
`name`	No
`requestId`	No
`sessionId`	No
`timelineIds`	No
`expectedRevision`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the 300-frame cap and the exclusion of audio. It still omits how the ZIP is delivered (inline, URL, file path), whether the call blocks, and whether existing exports are overwritten.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and output artifact, then constraints. No filler. Slightly terse given how much is left unexplained, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a multi-parameter export/mutation tool with no output schema and no annotated return shape. An agent still cannot tell which timelines are exported when timelineIds is omitted, what the ZIP contains, or how the result is retrieved — all critical for calling it correctly.

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 0% across six parameters, and the description explains none of them — not fps, name, sessionId, timelineIds, requestId, or expectedRevision (a concurrency token that clearly needs explanation). The 300-frame bound isn't even tied to any parameter, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Render a frame sequence ZIP') plus the medium ('using the editor'), which is enough to tell it apart from export_svg and render_preview. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, keeping it 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?

The description gives a hard constraint ('bounded to 300 frames per call') that implies chunking longer exports, but never says when to choose this over render_preview or export_runtime, nor what prerequisites (session, timeline) are needed. No when-not guidance at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server