Get transform coordinates, bounding box sourceRect, and applied effects for a specified layer in the active After Effects comp.
Returns transform coordinates, bounding box sourceRect, and applied effects list for a specific layer index in the active comp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer_index | Yes | 1-based layer index in active comp. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what data is returned (transform, sourceRect, effects list) but does not mention potential errors for invalid layer_index, whether the active comp must exist, or if the operation is read-only. It is a read operation by nature, but the description doesn't explicitly state side effects or failure modes.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key outputs and specifies the target layer. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks details about error handling (e.g., out-of-range layer_index), whether the active comp is required, and the exact structure of the returned data. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on return format would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, layer_index, is described as '1-based layer index in active comp.' The description adds context about what the parameter is used for (specific layer index) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 specific verb 'Returns' and the resource: transform coordinates, bounding box sourceRect, and applied effects list for a specific layer index in the active comp. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ae_get_active_comp and ae_get_selected_layers by focusing on layer properties at a given index.
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 usage: call this when you need transform, bounding box, or effects data for a specific layer index. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like ae_get_selected_layers (for selected layers) or ae_get_active_comp (for comp info), but the context signals and sibling names make the distinction reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.