Morpha

set_layer_fill

Set a layer's fill. The canvas backdrop is the pinned is_background image_layer (its element id is exposed via describe_video as background.elementId; the literal 'background.canvas' is also accepted as a synonym); null is rejected on the backdrop. Shapes require a Fill (null/missing is rejected). Image / video / text / group layers accept a Fill object (or #rrggbb hex) to paint a backdrop, or null to clear it — clearing removes the layer's fill colour keyframes too, so an animated backdrop really does go away. Shapes paint their body; image/video paint behind the bitmap; groups paint a rect centred on the pivot sized by (box_width, box_height). REFUSED on a layer whose fill is ANIMATED (it has colour keyframes): the track wins at every frame, so a plain fill write would be invisible. Change it at a frame with add_color_keyframe, or pass clear_animation:true to replace the animation with this fill.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fill`	Yes	Either '#rrggbb' (promoted to solid) or a Fill object: {type:"solid",color} / {type:"linear",stops:[{pos:0..1,color}],angle?} / {type:"radial",stops:[{pos:0..1,color}],cx?,cy?,radius?} / {type:"mask",layer_id,color}. A gradient is ONE fill — don't fake it with stacked shapes. null (image/video/text/group only) clears the backdrop, including any fill colour keyframes on it.
`elementId`	Yes	shapes.<id> / image.<id> / video.<id> / group.<id>. The pinned is_background image_layer is the canvas backdrop; the literal 'background.canvas' is accepted as a synonym.
`projectId`	Yes	Opaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates.
`clear_animation`	No	Only meaningful on a layer whose fill is animated. true = this fill REPLACES the colour animation (its keyframes are deleted). Omitted / false = the call is refused rather than writing a fill the animation would hide.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it thoroughly. It discloses that null is rejected on the backdrop, that clearing removes fill keyframes, that the tool refuses animated fill layers, and exactly how each layer type is painted. It even explains why a plain fill would be invisible on an animated layer, giving the agent full insight into side effects and limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then builds out the special cases in logical order. It is longer than average, but every clause carries unique operational information and no sentence is filler. It is dense rather than bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex mutation tool with high behavioral nuance, and the description covers all important branches: backdrop semantics, layer type differences, null-handling, side effects on keyframes, refusal conditions, and how to override the refusal. With no output schema and a required projectId that the schema already explains, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the per-layer-type semantics of fill (shapes paint body, image/video paint behind bitmap, groups paint a rect) and clarifying clear_animation behavior. This goes beyond the schema's property comments, justifying a 4.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set a layer's fill') and immediately differentiates among backdrop, shapes, and image/video/text/group layers. It names the exact resource type and the associated side effects, making it unambiguous which operation this performs and how it differs from related siblings like add_color_keyframe or set_style.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use alternatives: on an animated fill, use add_color_keyframe, or pass clear_animation:true to replace the animation. It also clarifies the backdrop's special handling and which layer types allow null. No ambiguity remains about when to invoke this tool versus a sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Morpha tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?