Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
animate-mcp

animate-mcp

by gekkyo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

run_jsfl

Execute arbitrary JSFL code inside Adobe Animate to automate document edits and inspections; be aware it can modify documents or files.

Instructions

Execute arbitrary JSFL code inside Adobe Animate. This runs arbitrary code and may modify documents or files.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "run_jsfl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: the code is arbitrary and 'may modify documents or files.' That is a real mutation warning. However, it says nothing about sandboxing, permissions required, whether execution is transactional or reversible, or how errors surface - significant gaps for a code-execution tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Minor redundancy in repeating 'arbitrary code' twice, but the second sentence adds the warning rather than repeating the first verbatim.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool is and its risk profile. It omits any indication of what executing returns or how output is surfaced, which an agent would want, so it is not fully complete.

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?

The single 'code' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only reiterates that the input is JSFL code, adding nothing about format, whether snippets need a wrapper, whether file paths are resolved, or whether return values can be captured.

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: 'Execute arbitrary JSFL code inside Adobe Animate.' The agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'apply_scripts', which is presumably the non-arbitrary path, so it stops 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 word 'arbitrary' hints that this is for ad-hoc code rather than pre-packaged scripts, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of the apply_scripts sibling as the alternative. The agent must infer the routing decision.

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