Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chorono

Chorono

by codie1982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

export_svg

Save an SVG export from Chorono using the existing vector exporter for portable vector output.

Instructions

Save an SVG export using the existing vector exporter.

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_svg"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
timeMsNo
requestIdNo
sessionIdNo
expectedRevisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds nothing about the side effects of a write operation: where the SVG is written, whether it overwrites existing files, or how it interacts with project state. The presence of requestId, sessionId, timeMs and expectedRevision parameters hints at async/job and optimistic-concurrency semantics that the description never explains.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing; the single sentence is not front-loaded with scope or effect.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a file-writing export tool with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations describing side effects, and no indication of destination, format options, or failure modes. The definition is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. It says nothing about name (output filename? export name?), timeMs, requestId, sessionId, or expectedRevision, leaving the entire input contract undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Save an SVG export" gives a verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from export_runtime and export_sequence by the SVG target. But "using the existing vector exporter" is internal jargon that doesn't tell an agent what content is exported (current frame, scene, timeline) or what the result is.

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?

No guidance on when to pick this over the many sibling export/render tools (render_preview, export_runtime, export_sequence, get_scene_json) or save_project. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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