Run an After Effects .jsx or .jsxbin script file, optionally pass arguments, and return the script's last value for scripting and automation workflows.
After Effects: run a .jsx/.jsxbin script file (any installed script, ScriptUI panel or tool) and return its last value. Scripts in Scripts/ScriptUI Panels can be found with adobe_listPlugins.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | exposed to the script as $.global.MCP_ARGS | |
| path | Yes |
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=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the script's last value is returned. What it omits is significant: executing arbitrary user scripts in the host app can have unbounded side effects, yet nothing warns about execution context, blocking behavior, or failure modes.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the host app and action, with the discovery hint placed last. Nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description usefully states that the script's last value is returned. With only two parameters and a referenced discovery tool, an agent has nearly everything needed, though a note on execution context or error behavior would close the remaining 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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates for the undocumented 'path' by specifying it must be a .jsx/.jsxbin file and can be any installed script or panel. The 'args' parameter is documented in the schema as being exposed to the script via $.global.MCP_ARGS, so the pair together covers both parameters adequately.
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 (run a .jsx/.jsxbin script file in After Effects), clarifies the scope covers any installed script, ScriptUI panel or tool, and says it returns the script's last value. It does not differentiate from the sibling adobe_runScript, so an agent must infer which executor to use.
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?
It points the agent at adobe_listPlugins for discovering scripts in Scripts/ScriptUI Panels, which is useful routing. However, it never says when to prefer this over adobe_runScript or adobe_pluginFile, nor any prerequisites for running scripts in AE; usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.