Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
artscii

artscii

by rxolve
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

animate

Generate ASCII animations by combining art with motion effects like bounce, fade, or pulse, outputting bash scripts or raw frames.

Instructions

Compose ASCII animations: combine any art with a motion. Motions: bounce, shake, blink, slide, reveal, fade, pulse, rain, progress, wave, jump, talk. Returns a bash script or raw frames.

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": {
      "art": "<art>",
      "motion": "<motion>"
    },
    "name": "animate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
artYesArt ID (e.g. "heart", "cat", "trophy") or custom ASCII text
motionYesMotion type to apply
outputNo"script" = bash script for terminal. "frames" = raw frame data.script

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions output ('bash script or raw frames') but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or what happens with custom ASCII text versus art IDs. Minimal insight into tool behavior.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with a list of motions. No wasted words. Every element serves a purpose: verb, resource, options, and output types are efficiently communicated.

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 simple tool with 3 fully-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It could elaborate on 'raw frames' format, but overall adequacy is high given the tool's low complexity.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds 'combine any art with a motion' but largely repeats schema information (motion list, output enum). Minimal added meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('compose') and resource ('ASCII animations'), and explicitly lists available motions and output types. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'frame' (static) or 'chart' (different purpose).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'frame' or 'compose'. Context is implied but not directly compared, leaving the agent to infer usage without exclusions or prerequisites.

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