List composition or layer markers in After Effects to inspect cue points, timing, and comments without manual scanning.
After Effects: list comp markers (or a layer's markers).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | 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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it can target comp or layer markers, but says nothing about return shape or ordering, which matters without an output schema.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the app and the operation immediately.
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-optional-parameter read tool with annotations, this is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not say what a marker listing contains or how results are ordered, leaving a gap.
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. The description's 'or a layer's markers' aligns with the layer parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.
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+resource ('list comp markers') and adds the layer-marker scope. It doesn't explicitly name siblings like ae_addMarkers or ae_deleteMarkers, but 'list' clearly distinguishes read from mutation.
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: this is the read path for markers, with the layer parameter switching scope. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to ae_addMarkers/ae_deleteMarkers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.