Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chorono

Chorono

by codie1982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ungroup_layer

Ungroup a group layer while preserving child transforms and animation, so you can edit individual children without losing positions or keyframes.

Instructions

Ungroup a group and preserve children transforms and animation.

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": "ungroup_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layerIdYes
requestIdNo
sessionIdNo
expectedRevisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) in a closed world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context — children keep their transforms and animations — but does not say what happens to the group layer itself (removed? replaced?), whether the operation is reversible, or what conflicts with expectedRevision do.

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 no filler, and the most consequential behavioral fact (children are preserved) is stated up front. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 mutation tool with four parameters (three undocumented), no output schema, and a destructive-ish restructuring effect, one sentence is thin. Missing: what layerId must point to, the role of sessionId/expectedRevision, and the resulting state of the group layer.

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 four parameters. The description only implies that layerId identifies the group to ungroup and says nothing about requestId (apparent idempotency key), sessionId, or expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency control), leaving half the surface undocumented anywhere.

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 verb+resource pairing ('Ungroup a group') is specific and immediately legible, and it is effectively the inverse of the sibling group_layers. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating any scope (e.g. single-level vs recursive), so a 4 rather than 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. layerId must reference a group layer, not a leaf), and no pointer to the inverse operation group_layers. Usage is only implicit from the word 'ungroup'.

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