Move a layer within its parent's siblings. newIndex is 0-based among siblings (root list when ungrouped, or the parent group's children when nested). 0 = bottom of that subtree; last = top.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newIndex | Yes | 0-based index among siblings of the same parent. | |
| elementId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | Opaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It credibly conveys the non-obvious behavior: newIndex direction (0 = bottom, last = top), the subtree scope, and the root-vs-nested parent contexts. It stops short of disclosing edge cases such as out-of-range or negative newIndex, or what happens when newIndex equals the current position.
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?
Two dense sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the index semantics follow immediately. Every sentence carries operational information that an agent needs before invoking the tool.
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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the call-enabling essentials: indexing base, direction, and parent scope. It would be more complete if it explicitly named move_layer as the tool for cross-parent moves and stated behavior for invalid indices, but such gaps are secondary given the simplicity of the operation.
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 67%: newIndex and projectId are documented while elementId is bare in the schema. The description adds genuine value for newIndex by mapping values to z-order positions (bottom/top) and explaining the ungrouped-vs-nested parent scope, going beyond the schema's single line. elementId is the only gap, but it is inferable from the tool name and context.
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 opens with a specific verb–resource pair ('Move a layer') and immediately scopes it to reordering within the current parent ('within its parent's siblings'), which distinguishes it from cross-parent moves like the sibling move_layer. It also makes the ordering semantics unambiguous: 0-based, 0 = bottom, last = top.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description explains the two indexing contexts (ungrouped root list vs nested group children) but never states when to prefer reorder_layer over the near-duplicate sibling move_layer. In a sibling list of 95+ tools, the absence of any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance leaves routing to inference.
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.