@inscada/mcp-server

Official

by inscada-app

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

get_animation

Read-only

Retrieve animation details, elements, and linked scripts by animation ID or name. Optionally include SVG content.

Instructions

Get animation details, elements, and linked scripts.

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": "get_animation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`animation_id`	No	Animation ID
`animation_name`	No	Animation name (partial match, used if animation_id not provided)
`project_id`	No	Project ID (for name-based search)
`include_svg`	No	Include SVG content (default: false)
`include_elements`	No	Include elements (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description confirms safety. The description adds value by stating that 'linked scripts' are included, which is not evident from the input schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more precise about the scope of 'details', but overall concise.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the distinction between ID-based and name-based lookup, nor the role of project_id. It lacks guidance on parameter interaction.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already handles parameters. The description does not add meaning for individual parameters; it only indicates that elements and linked scripts are part of the response. No additional semantic context for parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resources 'animation details, elements, and linked scripts'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_animations (which lists animations) and get_script (which gets a script).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_animations or get_script. It does not explain when to provide animation_id vs animation_name, nor when project_id is required.

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