Control AnimationPlayer playback: seek to time, queue animations, adjust speed, or retrieve animation info.
AnimationPlayer seek/queue/speed/info control
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speed | No | Playback speed scale | |
| action | Yes | Action: seek, queue, set_speed, get_info, stop | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to AnimationPlayer node | |
| position | No | Seek position in seconds | |
| animationName | No | Animation name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 only lists operation categories without disclosing side effects, whether queueing modifies playback state, what get_info returns, how speed interacts with ongoing playback, or whether stop resets state. For a control tool with mutating actions, this is insufficient.
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 extremely compact with no filler words, and it front-loads the key resource and operation categories. However, it resembles a label more than a structured explanation, so it does not fully earn a top score.
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?
This is a multi-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain action semantics, return values, preconditions, or how it relates to overlapping siblings like game_play_animation. An agent would need to inspect the schema and experiment to understand expected behavior, which is a significant completeness gap.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and their basic roles. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the action types. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'AnimationPlayer seek/queue/speed/info control' clearly identifies the target resource (AnimationPlayer) and the operations it covers (seek, queue, speed, info). It is specific enough to convey what the tool is about, though it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-driven statement and doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like game_play_animation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_play_animation or game_animation_tree. The action list in the schema implies some usage, but the description itself provides no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the right selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.