Retrieve complete details for an After Effects layer by name or index, including transforms, keyframes, expressions, effects, masks, and text; optionally target a specific composition.
After Effects: full detail of one layer — transform values, keyframe counts, expressions, effects, masks, text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | Yes | Layer name or 1-based index. | |
| 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 this as read-only, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context by listing the layer details exposed, but it does not address error behavior, layer lookup failure, or active-comp fallback.
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 no redundant wording. Every phrase earns its place by identifying the layer and enumerating the returned detail categories.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough return-content detail to understand what the agent gets back. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention lookup errors or clarify active-comp behavior, though the schema covers the latter.
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 parameters are already documented in the schema: layer name/index and optional compositionName. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific resource (one After Effects layer) and clearly enumerates what detail is returned: transform values, keyframe counts, expressions, effects, masks, and text. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby read tools such as ae_getProperties, so it falls 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?
The description states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools. An agent must infer usage from the name and return-content list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.