Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AE MCP Server

AE MCP Server

by p10q
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

convert_mask_to_shape

Convert mask layers to shape layer paths in Adobe After Effects compositions to enable vector-based editing and animation.

Instructions

Convert a mask to a shape layer path

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": {
      "compId": "<compId>",
      "layerIndex": "<layerIndex>",
      "maskIndex": "<maskIndex>"
    },
    "name": "convert_mask_to_shape"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
compIdYesID of the composition
layerIndexYesIndex of the layer with mask
maskIndexYesIndex of the mask to convert
createNewLayerNoCreate a new shape layer (vs add to existing)
targetLayerIndexNoTarget shape layer index (if not creating new)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'convert' but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive to the original mask, error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and easy to parse, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of a conversion tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like mutability, error handling, or result format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a conversion process, which the schema's parameter descriptions cover adequately. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'convert' and the resource 'mask to a shape layer path', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_shape_from_path' or 'modify_shape_path', which might handle similar shape operations, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing mask, or compare it to siblings like 'add_shape_layer' or 'modify_shape_path', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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