Retrieve audio metadata, source file path, markers, and level keyframes for an After Effects layer to inspect sound timing and automation data.
Get audio metadata, source file path, existing markers, and audio level keyframes for a layer in After Effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compIndex | Yes | 1-based composition index. | |
| layerName | No | Target layer name (alternative to layerIndex). | |
| layerIndex | No | Target layer index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It lists the exact data returned (metadata, source path, markers, keyframes), which provides some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe behavior on missing layers, though 'Get' implies no side effects. This is adequate but not highly detailed.
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 description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It lists the four types of data retrieved without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.
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 get tool with no output schema, the description lists all the expected return values. It does not detail output format or error conditions, but these omissions are minor given the tool's straightforward read-only nature. The description provides enough context for typical usage.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, such as how layerName and layerIndex interact. With full schema coverage, the baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get audio metadata, source file path, existing markers, and audio level keyframes for a layer in After Effects.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('audio info'), and it differs from siblings like 'set-audio-levels' and 'analyze-audio-waveform' by focusing on reading existing data.
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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to retrieve audio-related information for a layer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the descriptive text and tool name imply a read-only retrieval role. Since it does not mention exclusions, it earns a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.