Export individual animation frames as PNG or JPEG files, with optional frame range and dimensions, and return frame metadata for generative art workflows.
Export individual frames as PNG/JPEG. Returns frame metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| format | No | Default "png". | |
| height | No | ||
| frameRange | No | [start, end] frame indices. Default: all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says frames are exported and metadata is returned, but does not disclose where files are written, whether export is destructive, what permissions or context are required, or how errors behave.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted language. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to missing usage and behavioral context rather than being a structural flaw on its own.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an export tool with no annotations, no output schema, half the parameters undocumented, and many related export/preview siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not explain output format, file destination, required design context, or how it differs from adjacent tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%. The schema documents format defaults and frameRange defaults, but width and height are undocumented there and are not explained in the description either. The description adds essentially no parameter semantics beyond the PNG/JPEG mention already covered by the enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: exporting individual frames as PNG/JPEG, and notes that frame metadata is returned. This is clear enough to distinguish it from broad capture tools, though it does not explicitly name the nearest sibling alternatives such as design_export_gif or capture_screenshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not say when to use this tool instead of design_export_gif, capture_screenshot, export_sketch, preview_sketch, or design_preview_at. It gives no prerequisite context such as needing an existing timeline, selected sketch, or keyframes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.