flatten_layer_setSave the current arrangement of your own layers project as a finished picture in your library, composited at full quality from the original layer files. The project stays editable and you can flatten again.
| 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?
Annotation readOnlyHint=false already indicates a write operation. The description adds non-destructive behavior: 'project stays editable' and repeatability ('you can flatten again'), plus 'composited at full quality'. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations. However, it omits any side effects like overwriting behavior or return values, so 4.
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 sentences, each adds value: first states the action and outcome, second clarifies non-destructive/repeatable behavior. No fluff. Score 5.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action, the library destination, non-destructive behavior, and repeatability. It doesn't elaborate on errors or permissions, but those are not essential for this simple tool. Given the minimal annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it. Score 4.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('The layers project id.'). The tool description does not add additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra meaning. Score 3.
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 a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('your own layers project as a finished picture in your library'), and notes composite from original files. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'export_layer_set', so a 4 rather than 5.
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?
The description provides context for when to use it (when you want a finished picture while keeping the project editable) and notes repeatability, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. It stops short of explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, so a 4.
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.