AE MCP Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ae_run_jsx_file

Executes a specified ExtendScript file (.jsx/.js) from disk with optional arguments, allowing you to run reusable After Effects scripts in a single undo step.

Instructions

Run an ExtendScript .jsx/.js file from disk (a library of reusable scripts) with optional args, like ae_run_jsx. 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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ae_run_jsx_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`args`	No
`path`	Yes	Absolute path to the script.
`timeoutMs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses 'One undo step' (undo grouping) and that args are optional, but says nothing about the risk profile of executing arbitrary on-disk code, permission requirements, timeout behavior, or error handling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the source of the script, the optional argument, the sibling relationship, and the undo semantics with no filler. Dense but readable.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool that executes arbitrary on-disk code with a nested-args parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits how results are retrieved (e.g., via ae_get_result), timeout semantics, and failure behavior. Coverage is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 33% — only `path` is documented in the schema, leaving `args` and `timeoutMs` undocumented. The description mentions `args` exists but never explains what it does, how it is passed to the script, or what `timeoutMs` controls, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Run an ExtendScript .jsx/.js file from disk'. The parenthetical 'a library of reusable scripts' plus 'like ae_run_jsx' lets an agent infer this is the file-based counterpart to the inline-script sibling, though the contrast is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Says the file is 'a library of reusable scripts' and that args are optional, implying a use case, but never states when to choose this over ae_run_jsx or what prerequisites (file must exist on disk, readable by the host) apply. Usage is left to inference from the name.

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