Chorono

by codie1982

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_timelines

Read-only

Retrieve all animations with their durations, loop settings, tracks, segments, and events from a Chorono project to inspect or audit timeline structure.

Instructions

List all animations, their duration, loop settings, tracks, segments and events.

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": "list_timelines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`requestId`	No
`sessionId`	No
`expectedRevision`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

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 value by enumerating what each listed timeline carries (duration, loop settings, tracks, segments, events), but says nothing about volume, ordering, or whether output is summarized versus full fidelity.

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; the enumeration is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what it gets back. Slightly list-heavy but efficient.

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 zero-required-parameter read with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape but leaves all three input parameters and the session/revision semantics unexplained. An agent could call it with no arguments and get results, but not confidently call it with a session scope.

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% for three parameters (requestId, sessionId, expectedRevision), and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain that sessionId scopes the listing or what expectedRevision means for a read operation, leaving the schema to speak for itself with no help.

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 ('List') plus a concrete enumeration of the timeline payload ('duration, loop settings, tracks, segments and events'), so an agent knows this is a bulk read of all timelines. It falls short of 5 because it never contrasts with the sibling describe_timeline, which presumably reads one timeline in detail.

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 versus describe_timeline, get_scene_json, or list_layers, and no mention of prerequisites such as a session context. The agent must infer that this is the 'all timelines' counterpart to describe_timeline purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server