Returns metadata for the active After Effects composition: name, id, width, height, fps, duration, numLayers. Enables AI to inspect current comp state for automation.
Returns metadata (name, id, width, height, fps, duration, numLayers) for the active composition in After Effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation by saying 'Returns metadata', but it does not disclose what happens when no composition is active, whether the tool requires an open project, or whether it can fail. The field list adds some useful detail, but edge-case behavior is absent.
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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the target, and the returned fields compactly. There is no filler or repetition.
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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists the exact metadata fields returnedhare. Missing are failure conditions and when to use the tool, but those are minor gaps given the operation's 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?
The tool has zero parametershare, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline is 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter detail.
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 action ('Returns metadata') and the specific resource ('active composition in After Effects') while enumerating the exact fields returned. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that operate on selected layers or evaluate arbitrary scripts.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools, such as ae_get_selected_layers or ae_get_layer_properties. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.