Apply a canned animation preset to a layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | Yes | ||
| elementId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | Opaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates. | |
| startFrame | No | Frame to anchor on. Default 0. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Apply', implying a mutation, but does not explain side effects on existing layer properties, whether the preset replaces or overlays existing animations, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal behavioral context for a mutating tool.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core operation. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and contains no filler.
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 tool with four parameters, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits behavioral context, fallback behavior, error cases, and relationship to sibling animation tools like apply_preset_stagger. An agent would likely need to inspect other resources or guess about side effects and return values.
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%, covering projectId and startFrame but not elementId or preset. The description adds useful context that the preset is an animation and the target is a layer, which helps interpret elementId and preset, but it does not articulate how startFrame interacts with presets or whether elementId refers to a layer ID specifically. It partially compensates for the schema gap without fully completing parameter meaning.
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 'Apply a canned animation preset to a layer' clearly names the action (apply), the object (a canned animation preset), and the target (a layer). It does not explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling apply_preset_stagger, so it misses the chance to differentiate, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_preset_stagger, fade_layer, or manually adding keyframes. The description simply states the operation without contextual selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.
95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.
The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.