get_animationRetrieve a Bannerbear animation by UID to inspect its render details and status for workflow checks or previews.
GET /v5/animations/{uid}. Current Bannerbear V5 operation; provider scopes, locks and credits apply. Read operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| account | No | Exact private workspace profile label; no fallback to another profile key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: provider scopes, locks, and credit consumption apply to this operation, which an agent needs to know before invoking. 'Read operation' merely repeats readOnlyHint.
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?
Three short sentences with the operation path front-loaded, then the operational caveats. No filler or redundancy beyond the slightly redundant 'Read operation' closer.
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 a simple read with rich annotations, the description covers the endpoint and cost/scope implications. However, with no output schema it says nothing about what an animation record contains or what the response looks like, and it does not explain how to obtain the required uid.
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 50%: account is documented in the schema, uid is not. The description only surfaces uid via the path template and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's pattern/length constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the parameter definitions.
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 names a specific verb (GET) and resource path (/v5/animations/{uid}), making clear this retrieves a single animation by identifier. It distinguishes itself implicitly from list_animations via the {uid} path, though it never explicitly names that sibling or states 'retrieve one'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_animations or get_animation_template. The {uid} in the path implies single-record retrieval, but nothing states preconditions (e.g., needing a uid obtained from list_animations) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.