Retrieves a MOGRT component from Premiere Pro so you can inspect or edit its exposed controls.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: get mogrt component.
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": "get_mogrt_component"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'get,' implying a read operation without specifying return values, side effects, required state, or failure modes. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.
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 it is under-specified rather than concise. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is filler that adds no value, and the remaining words merely echo the tool name.
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, no parameter documentation, and no behavioral explanation, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what a mogrt component is, how the result is returned, or what conditions must be met to successfully invoke this tool.
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 declared parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives the baseline score of 4.
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: get mogrt component' essentially restates the tool name and adds only the vague modifier 'expanded operation.' It does not define what a mogrt component is, what 'get' returns, or how it differs from sibling tools like import_mogrt or import_mogrt_from_library.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is a bare statement with no usage context, earning the 'no guidance' score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.