Toggle any layer's visibility in an After Effects composition by specifying composition and layer names. Set visible true to show the layer or false to hide it, controlling the eye icon directly.
Show or hide a layer (toggle the eye icon)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visible | Yes | true = visible, false = hidden | |
| comp_name | Yes | Composition name | |
| layer_name | Yes | Layer name |
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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the core behavior (showing/hiding a layer), but provides no context about side effects, whether it operates on the active composition or a named one, or what the function returns. For a simple toggle this is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and the eye-icon metaphor adds clarity without length.
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?
For a low-complexity visibility toggle with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention that the operation applies to a layer within a specified composition, but the combination of the description and the input schema gives an agent enough information to invoke it correctly.
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 documents all three parameters and the meaning of 'visible'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which meets the baseline expectation but doesn't go further.
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 specific action ('Show or hide a layer') on a clear resource (layer visibility) and the 'eye icon' detail helps differentiate it from sibling toggles like solo or lock. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast siblings, but the resource and icon reference make the purpose clear.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ae_set_layer_property or ae_toggle_layer_solo. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.