Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
After Effects MCP

After Effects MCP

by leo10m2010
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Save After Effects project

after_effects_save_project
DestructiveIdempotent

Save the current After Effects project to its existing path or specify a new destination for Save As.

Instructions

Save the current project. Provide project_path for Save As; omit it to save to the project's existing path.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "after_effects_save_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNoOptional absolute .aep or .aepx destination path.
timeout_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no context beyond 'save'. It does not explain overwrite behavior, confirmation dialogs, or potential errors. The description carries minimal burden beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple save operation, the description is minimal but functional. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or what happens on overwrite. Given no output schema and limited context, it could be more complete (e.g., 'Returns success or throws an error').

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?

The description adds clear semantics for project_path ('Save As' vs 'save to existing path') which complements the schema's description. However, timeout_seconds is not addressed, leaving its role implicit. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the purpose ('Save the current project') and distinguishes between Save and Save As by explaining the role of project_path. It uses specific verbs and resource, making it unambiguous.

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?

The description provides basic guidance on when to supply project_path vs when to omit it, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., saving before closing, periodic saves). The context from sibling tools is implicit but not stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools