Retrieve current Adobe Premiere Pro project details—name, file path, settings, and status—to understand the open project before editing or automating workflows.
Gets comprehensive information about the current project including name, path, settings, and status.
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Gets comprehensive information' but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, if it might be slow, or what happens if no project is open. It lacks transparency about side effects or edge cases.
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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary wording, and the core information is front-loaded.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it does not elaborate on what 'settings' and 'status' include, and it does not clarify the scope (e.g., active project only). With many similar sibling tools, a bit more context would improve usability.
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 parameters, so per instructions the baseline is 4. The schema is empty, so there is nothing to compensate for. The description adds minimal value here since there are no parameters to document.
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 clearly states the action (gets) and resource (current project), and specifies the information returned (name, path, settings, status). However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like get_full_project_overview or get_premiere_state, which could cause ambiguity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many similar information-retrieval siblings. The description states what it does but not when it is the preferred choice, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open project).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.