list_layersRetrieve the layer stack from a .comp project, showing id, name, kind, and visibility in top-to-bottom order.
Compact list of layers (id, name, kind, visibility) from top to bottom as shown in Compositor's Layers panel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the .comp project package (a directory ending in .comp) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: it returns a compact subset of fields, and it orders layers from top to bottom, which clarifies what an agent can expect from the output.
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 a single focused sentence that conveys the resource, returned fields, ordering, and visual reference without any filler or redundancy.
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?
With one fully documented required parameter, annotations covering the safety profile, and a description that explicitly states the output fields and ordering, the tool is fully specified for an agent to invoke correctly. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the return shape.
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 describes the only parameter (path) fully, with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline applies. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('layers') and enumerates the exact fields (id, name, kind, visibility), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like set_layer or remove_layer by framing this as a read-only enumeration operation.
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 clear context: it returns a compact, top-to-bottom layer list in the same order as the Compositor's Layers panel. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case—reading the current layer stack—is strongly implied and easy for an agent to act on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.