Enable or disable multiple Premiere Pro items in one batch to avoid repetitive manual toggling.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: batch enable disable.
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": "batch_enable_disable"
}
}| 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?
Despite the absence of annotations, the description does not document read/write behavior, side effects, permissions, return values, or reversible operations. Any toggling could change project state, yet each behavior is opaque.
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?
One-sentence solution, no redundant words, but 'expansion/full operation' is a wryware word filler; but a map schema was already made available. Minimal.
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?
All behavioral assumptions are not controlled: it does not specify preconditions, return, error, or illustrative examples. The tool is huge, but the description is in no context for any working-environment. Thus the agent is unable to decide precisely when in a given process.
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 input schema describes an object with string names but empty sets; nothing explains each field or what the parameter object controls. Several payload entries must be unspecified with a deep data value. But base schema fully describes map shape.
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?
Description is a near-synonym of the name and only says 'batch enable/disable', without naming a single tool resource or target (media, clips, sequences). It acts not as a verbose but vague resource. It cannot be distinguished from other reservation tool(s).
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 context for use or alternatives is described. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is provided; 'batch' is the only lifetime clue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.