Skip to main content
Glama
kumoproductions

mcp-cinema4d

by kumoproductions
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Edit Timeline Marker

set_marker

Update an existing Cinema 4D timeline marker by renaming, recoloring, moving, or resizing it; target by index, frame, or name and provide at least one change.

Instructions

Rename, recolour, move, or resize an existing timeline marker. Identify the target by exactly one of index (from list_markers — always unambiguous), frame, or name (the latter two error if several markers match). Pass at least one update field. Returns the updated marker's info.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoTarget by name (errors on ambiguity).
colorNoNew colour as [r, g, b] floats in 0..1.
frameNoTarget the marker at this frame (errors on ambiguity).
indexNoTarget by position in the marker chain (see list_markers).
new_nameNoNew label for the marker.
new_frameNoMove the marker to this frame.
length_framesNoNew marker length in frames.
new_time_secondsNoMove the marker to this time in seconds (mutually exclusive with new_frame).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / color / items
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "maximum": 1,
-    "minimum": 0,
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "maximum": 1,
-    "minimum": 0,
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "maximum": 1,
-    "minimum": 0,
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]New value: +{
+  "maximum": 1,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / color / maxItems
      Added value: +3
    • addedInput schema / properties / color / minItems
      Added value: +3
  2. Addedv0.4.3

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses ambiguity errors for name/frame targeting, the mutual exclusivity implied by the time/frame move options, and that the updated marker's info is returned. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens if no update field is passed beyond the instruction to pass one.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the update capabilities, then targeting rules, then the return contract. Every clause adds information; no filler.

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 an 8-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, target identification, update-field requirement, error conditions, and the return shape. Only permission/authorization context is absent, which is minor.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the target-selection strategy across index/frame/name (including the list_markers provenance of index) and by tying new_time_seconds and new_frame together as alternative move mechanisms.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set and resource: 'Rename, recolour, move, or resize an existing timeline marker.' The word 'existing' cleanly separates it from create_marker/remove_marker siblings without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the target must be identified by exactly one of index/frame/name, notes that the latter two error on ambiguity, recommends index as 'always unambiguous' with a pointer to list_markers, and requires at least one update field. This is near-complete routing guidance.

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