Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chorono

Chorono

by codie1982
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_composition

Change canvas composition settings such as size, frame rate, duration, and background color to configure a Chorono animation project.

Instructions

Change canvas composition settings (size, duration, framerate, background color).

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": "update_composition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
widthNoCanvas width in px
heightNoCanvas height in px
frameRateNoFrames per second (24, 30, 60)
requestIdNo
sessionIdNo
durationMsNoTotal duration in milliseconds
backgroundColorNoCSS hex color e.g. "#1a1a2e"
expectedRevisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a local mutation. However, the description does not explain partial-update behavior, how expectedRevision controls concurrency, what sessionId/requestId mean, or what effects changing composition may have on existing layers or timelines.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It efficiently states the resource and the main settings being changed.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and concurrency/session parameters, the description is too thin. It does not cover return behavior, partial updates, or the roles of requestId, sessionId, and expectedRevision.

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 63%, and the schema already documents width, height, frameRate, durationMs, and backgroundColor. The description repeats those concepts but omits requestId, sessionId, and expectedRevision, including the critical optimistic-concurrency parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing canvas composition settings, and names the affected settings. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like update_layer or update_timeline, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Change' and the listed settings, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to related tools.

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