export_layer_setPrepare a private, short-lived download link for your own layers project: a ZIP holding every original transparent PNG plus a manifest of names, order, boxes and visibility, ready for Photoshop or Figma. Each call rebuilds the ZIP (one stored copy per project, overwritten).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer_set_id | Yes | The layers project id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that each call rebuilds the ZIP, overwrites the stored copy per project, and that the link is private and short-lived. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explaining concrete side effects and link lifetime.
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 two sentences: first sentence states the core action and output, second sentence notes the side effect. It is front-loaded, succinct, 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, output format and contents, intended use (Photoshop/Figma), and side effects (rebuild/overwrite). It is fully self-contained and leaves no significant gaps.
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?
The schema fully describes the only parameter (layer_set_id as the project id). The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool prepares a private, short-lived download link for a layers project, detailing the ZIP contents (original transparent PNGs and a manifest). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_layer_set or flatten_layer_set.
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?
It provides clear context that this is for downloading your own layers project for use in Photoshop or Figma, and implies it is not for reading metadata or flattening. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, falling short of a 5.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical semantic ground: apply_iphone_realism and apply_ugc both describe casual phone-shot looks, upload_media and upload_reference_asset both accept uploads, and analyze_video overlaps heavily with analyze_video_report. The many apply_* style tools are essentially one tool parameterized by style, so agents can easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as generate_image, list_my_videos, get_editor_run, and upscale_video. A few outliers like voice, talking_avatar_video, and video_to_prompt do not use the same verb-first convention, but they are still readable and do not create significant confusion.
At 55 tools, the surface is far beyond what is appropriate for an MCP server; many of these be collapsed or parameterized, especially the 10 apply_* style wrappers and several overlapping upload/status helpers. Even for a broad media platform, this scale forces a huge context window and makes selecting the right tool impractical.
The surface covers generation, media display, video analysis, and Editor workflows well, but there are obvious gaps in library lifecycle management: move_asset and create_folder are referenced in tool descriptions without being exposed, and there is no clean way to delete or reorganize media assets. Agents following the descriptions will try to call tools that do not exist.