Retrieves all keyframes for a specified layer property in an After Effects composition by providing composition name, layer name, and property path.
List all keyframes for a layer property
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| layer_name | Yes | Layer name | |
| property_path | Yes | Property path (e.g. 'Transform.Position', 'Transform.Opacity') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It signals a safe, read-only action and emphasizes 'all' keyframes, but it does not disclose the return format, what happens when there are no keyframes, or how keyframes with expressions are handled. This is adequate but not rich.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core operation without redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple and all required parameters are documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the shape of the returned keyframe data or edge-case behavior. It is minimally sufficient for invoking the tool, but leaves some uncertainty about the result.
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 parameters are already documented with names, types, and examples. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action and resource: 'List all keyframes for a layer property.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ae_add_keyframe, ae_delete_keyframe, and ae_set_keyframe_interpolation by making clear this is a read-only listing operation.
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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to inspect the keyframes on a specific layer property. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so the agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.