ae_project_infoList all After Effects project items—comps, footage, solids, and folders—with IDs to reference them in other tools.
List everything in the Project panel — comps, footage, solids and folders — with ids you can pass to other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Filter by item kind. Default: all. | |
| search | No | Case-insensitive substring match on the item name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is established. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating the output includes 'ids you can pass to other tools', which is useful for planning multi-tool workflows. No contradiction with the read-only hint.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, enlists the eligible item types, and ends with a note on the output's utility. No wasted words, but it could be slightly tighter by removing the duplicate 'everything' and 'all' in the schema.
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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the foundational information well: scope, content, and value proposition (IDs for other tools). It leaves a minor ambiguity about whether solids are a separate kind in the schema (the enum only lists comp, footage, folder, and all), but that is a small gap for a tool of this simplicity.
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 coverage is 100% – both 'kind' and 'search' are fully described in the schema. The description adds no explicit parameter guidance beyond mentioning the item types included in the default 'everything', but that's already clear from the schema's enum and default. No added value beyond the schema.
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 states a clear action (List), a precise resource (Project panel), enumerates the item types (comps, footage, solids, folders), and mentions IDs are returned for use in other tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like ae_list_comps without needing to open either schema.
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 implies this is the broad enumeration tool ('List everything in the Project panel') and notes IDs are for other tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with ae_list_comps or state when to choose one over the other. The guidance suggests usage for general listing, but exclusions and alternatives remain implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.