Executes a predefined After Effects script or command with optional parameters through the MCP Bridge, returning its synchronous result.
Run a command in After Effects and return its result. Executes synchronously over a local socket to the MCP Bridge panel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script | Yes | Name of the predefined script/command to run | |
| parameters | No | Optional parameters for the script |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses synchronous execution over a local socket to the MCP Bridge panel, but it omits important traits for a command-execution tool, such as side effects, permissions, error behavior, timeouts, or whether arbitrary scripts can be run.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and includes execution context without unnecessary filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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?
This is a command-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameters object. The description explains the transport mechanism but does not describe the result format, error handling, safety constraints, or when the tool should be preferred over more specialized sibling tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters, including the required script name and optional parameters object. The description adds little beyond the schema and does not explain how script names are discovered or how the parameters object is used.
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: run a command in After Effects and return its result. It does not explicitly differentiate this generic script runner from siblings such as render-frame, start-render, or create-composition, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like render-frame, start-render, or create-composition. It also does not state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.