AE MCP Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ae_remove_effects

Remove effects from a layer by name, matchName, index, or all in one undo step, using the active composition unless another comp is specified.

Instructions

Remove effects from a layer by name, matchName or index (or an array of them), or all. One undo step.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "layer": "<layer>"
    },
    "name": "ae_remove_effects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`all`	No
`comp`	No	Composition name or numeric item id. Omit to use the active composition.
`layer`	Yes	Layer name or 1-based index.
`effect`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses transactionality ('One undo step'), which tells the agent the operation is grouped atomically, but it omits error behavior (e.g., missing effect name), permission requirements, and what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence plus a two-word fragment; the selector options are front-loaded and no words are wasted. Ideal size for a simple mutation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema or annotations, the description resolves the main ambiguity (targeting a specific effect vs 'all') and states undo behavior. Only the failure/return semantics are left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description compensates for exactly the undocumented parameters: it explains that 'effect' accepts a name, matchName, index, or an array of them, and that 'all' removes everything. That is real added meaning beyond the bare schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove effects from a layer') and immediately narrows the selector space ('by name, matchName or index... or all'). It is clearly distinguishable in intent from siblings like ae_apply_effect and ae_list_layer_effects, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as re-applying a preset or using ae_set_layer. The 'or all' clause implies a bulk-removal mode but does not explain when each mode is appropriate or what preconditions exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.