Add video or audio tracks to a Premiere Pro sequence to expand editing layers and organize clips.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: add tracks.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "add_tracks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does 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 reveals nothing about side effects—what kind of tracks are added (video/audio), to which sequence, whether existing tracks are affected, or any undo/restoration behavior. For a mutation operation in Premiere Pro, this is a total absence of transparency.
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 technically short (one sentence), but brevity is not earned conciseness. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is filler that adds no information, and the remaining 'add tracks' merely repeats the tool name. Every word fails to earn its place by contributing new meaning.
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?
Adding tracks to a Premiere sequence is a complex operation involving track type, quantity, and placement, yet the description provides no details. With no annotations, no output schema, and zero substantive prose, the tool is wholly inadequate for an agent to understand its behavior or results.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters and 100% vacuous schema coverage, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. With no parameters to describe, the schema needs no additional semantic help from the description; there is genuinely nothing to clarify here.
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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: add tracks' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with a vague 'expanded operation' qualifier. It states a verb+resource but provides zero specificity about what adding tracks entails, nor does it distinguish this plural form from the sibling add_track, add_to_timeline, or add_adjustment_layer tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like add_track (singular), add_to_timeline, and add_adjustment_layer, the description offers no context on sequencing prerequisites, target selection, or exclusions. The reader cannot determine appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.