Adds a solid layer to an After Effects composition using the comp's size and full duration by default, with options for name, color, size, timing, and target comp.
After Effects: add a solid layer (default comp size, full duration).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| startTime | No | ||
| compositionName | No | Comp name; omit to use the active comp. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by disclosing that the layer is created at comp size and full duration unless overridden, but it says nothing about which comp is targeted when compositionName is omitted or what happens if no comp is open.
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 front-loaded sentence with the app context first and the behavioral note in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a six-parameter mutation tool, but there is no verbosity to trim.
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 six optional parameters, 17% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain defaults for the undocumented parameters, the required context (an open comp), and what is returned. Instead it covers only size/duration defaults, leaving an agent to guess at the rest.
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 coverage is only 17% — only compositionName is documented. The description partially compensates by implying defaults for size (comp size) and duration (full duration), but leaves name, color, and startTime unexplained and gives no format hints (e.g., hex for color, units for duration).
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 (add solid layer) with the app namespace prefixed, which lets an agent distinguish it from ae_addShapeLayer, ae_addNull, ae_addAdjustment and ae_addTextLayer by name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to prefer a solid over the sibling layer types, no prerequisite (an existing/active comp must be available), and no exclusions. The parenthetical about default size and duration hints at default behavior but is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.