Retrieve detailed layer or composition data like position, scale, rotation, 3D status, effects, and masks to inspect and manage After Effects projects.
Get detailed information about a layer (position, scale, rotation, 3D status, effects, masks) or all layers in a composition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compName | No | Composition name | |
| layerName | No | Layer name (optional) | |
| layerIndex | No | Layer index (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating call and the description lists what is returned, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or output format. 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource and keeps the field enumeration compact. No filler or redundancy, though the parenthetical list is slightly long.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and both operating modes. For a low-complexity read tool this is nearly complete; only the safety/permission profile is left unstated.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the optional layerName/layerIndex parameters are the switch between 'a layer' and 'all layers in a composition' — the schema only says 'optional' without explaining the omitted-case behavior.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (layer information) and enumerates the returned fields (position, scale, rotation, 3D status, effects, masks), plus the dual scope of one layer vs all layers in a composition. It does not differentiate itself from the many get* siblings like getKeyframeInfo or getEffectProperties, so it stops 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?
Usage is only implied: omitting layerName/layerIndex switches to 'all layers in a composition', which hints at when each mode applies. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the dozens of get* siblings, so it sits at the implied-usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.