Retrieves the current playhead position in Adobe Premiere Pro's Source Monitor so you can sync edits, inspect source clips, or automate timeline decisions.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: get source monitor position.
| 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. It only restates the operation name without disclosing return behavior, side effects, or safety profile (e.g., read-only assumption). The phrase 'expanded operation' hints at advanced functionality but fails to explain what that entails.
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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks any elaboration that would justify its brevity, so it fails to earn its place beyond restating the 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 the empty schema and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It fails to specify what 'position' means, what the return value is, or how this tool relates to similar tools like get_source_monitor_info. For such a simple tool, minimal information is expected, but this is insufficient.
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 the schema fully covers the input side. However, the description adds no context about what the returned position represents or how it should be interpreted, which is essential for a tool with no parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the lack of any added meaning brings it down.
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 states 'get source monitor position' but 'position' is ambiguous (playhead? cursor? selection?). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_source_monitor_info, which likely provides similar or broader information including position. The purpose is only vaguely clear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain when to prefer this over get_source_monitor_info or other source-monitor-related tools, nor does it describe any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.