After Effects MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create-adjustment-layer

Add an adjustment layer to an After Effects composition. Customize layer name, position, size, start time, and duration.

Instructions

Create an adjustment layer in the specified composition (or active comp).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create-adjustment-layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`compName`	No	Composition name. If omitted, active composition is used.
`name`	No	Layer name (default: Adjustment Layer).
`position`	No	Layer position [x,y] or [x,y,z].
`size`	No	Layer size [width,height]. Defaults to comp dimensions.
`startTime`	No	Layer start time in seconds.
`duration`	No	Layer duration in seconds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden. It only states that it creates an adjustment layer but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or what happens if the comp isn't found. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb and resource clearly, making it both concise and structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description plus schema provide a reasonable understanding. However, it lacks information about return values or error behavior, and with no annotations, it's only minimally complete for a mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100% with all six parameters described in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create an adjustment layer') and the target ('in the specified composition (or active comp)'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like create-composition or apply-effect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when creating an adjustment layer in a comp), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. There's no guidance like 'use this instead of create-composition'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.