Create an After Effects composition with custom dimensions, frame rate, duration, background, and folder, then open it in the viewer for immediate editing.
After Effects: create a composition (defaults 1920x1080, 30 fps, 10 s) and open it in the viewer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| open | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| folder | No | Project folder path like "Comps/Chapter 1" (created if missing). | |
| height | No | ||
| bgColor | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| frameRate | No | ||
| pixelAspect | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: default dimensions, frame rate, duration, and the side effect of opening the composition in the viewer. It does not clarify name-collision behavior or whether the viewer-opening behavior can be suppressed via the open parameter.
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 definition is a single compact sentence with no filler. The core action and important defaults are front-loaded, making it efficient to scan.
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 9-parameter creation tool with very low schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It covers defaults and viewer opening but omits semantics for several parameters and does not describe the returned value.
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 very low at 11%, with only the folder parameter documented. The description helps by giving defaults for width, height, frameRate, and duration, but it leaves key parameters such as name, open, bgColor, and pixelAspect unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource: create an After Effects composition, with defaults and viewer behavior. It is clearly distinct from siblings like ae_setCompSettings or ae_openComp, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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: create a composition when a new comp is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of ae_setCompSettings, ae_openComp, or ae_newProject, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.