Retrieve detailed metadata and properties for a Premiere Pro project item, such as a clip or sequence. Use the returned information to inspect item status, attributes, and project context.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: get item info.
| 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 must carry full disclosure weight. 'Get item info' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what information is returned, what inputs affect the query, whether selection matters, or any failure/edge-case behavior. This is minimal at best.
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 short, but not meaningfully concise—it spends words on the filler phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' and then merely restates the tool name. The sentence does not earn its place because it adds no distinguishing information.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, an empty parameter list, and an enormous sibling tool list, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what 'item' means, what data will be returned, or how this tool differs from get_project_item_info and other retrieval tools.
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 zero documented parameters, so there is no parameter semantics the description needs to clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; the description does not actively harm this, though it also adds no useful context about how the tool determines its target.
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 'get item info' restates the tool name without specifying what 'item' refers to (project item, clip, sequence item?). It also doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_project_item_info or get_full_clip_info, making the intended resource ambiguous.
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 150+ sibling tools including several info-retrieval tools, the absence of any contextual or exclusionary information leaves the agent unable to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.