cavalry_list_layersRetrieve a structured list of layers in the active composition, including id, name, type, and parent, with optional filters by layer type or top-level status.
List layers in the active composition with their id, name, type and parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Only return layers of this type, e.g. "basicShape", "textShape", "group". | |
| topLevel | No | Only return top-level layers. Defaults to false. |
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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return shape (id, name, type, parent), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no composition is active.
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 with zero waste, front-loading the action and resource before the scope and return fields. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return shape adequately. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and behavior outside an active composition, but nothing an agent needs to call it is missing.
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%, so both filter parameters (type, topLevel) are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the filtering options, but the schema already carries that burden.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (list layers) plus the scope ('in the active composition'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, type, parent). It does not name a sibling it is distinct from, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell it apart from delete/rename/select tools without opening a 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?
Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'in the active composition' and by the returned identity fields, which suggest a discovery/inspection step before acting on a layer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as cavalry_get_selection or cavalry_list_attributes for narrowing results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.