Verify the After Effects bridge connection by running its test command, which applies test effects to the active composition.
Check the connection: runs the bridge's test command in After Effects, which applies test effects to the active composition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-ibintec.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a hidden side effect that the name would not imply: the test mutates the active composition by applying test effects to it. It does not say whether those effects are cleaned up afterward, whether the change is undoable, or what a pass/fail signal looks like.
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 compact sentence with the diagnostic intent front-loaded before the mechanism. There is mild redundancy in restating the word 'test' twice (test command / test effects), but no wasted sentences.
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 zero-argument diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the mechanism but omits the result contract (is there a pass/fail or an error to interpret?) and whether the applied test effects persist in the composition. The sibling get-results suggests output is fetched elsewhere, but that is not stated.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with full description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool 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 action (runs the bridge's test command in After Effects) and its concrete effect (applies test effects to the active composition), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It lacks an explicit contrast with the closely related sibling run-script, which also executes code in After Effects, leaving the boundary between 'test' and arbitrary script execution to inference.
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 lead phrase 'Check the connection' implies the intended scenario: verifying the host bridge is alive. However, it never says when not to use it, whether it is safe to run mid-workflow, or why the agent should pick this over run-script or get-help for diagnostics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.