Retrieve Adobe Premiere Pro version details to verify compatibility or troubleshoot integration issues.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: get version info.
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_version_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?
The description provides no behavioral disclosure beyond restating the tool's name. It does not mention what version is returned (Premiere Pro app version, project version, API version), the return format, or whether any side effects occur. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to add any meaningful transparency.
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 only one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The phrase 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' is redundant filler, and the core message is just a repetition of the tool name. It lacks the informative brevity that earns points.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description still fails to clarify what 'version info' refers to. It does not state whether the result is a string, object, or what fields it contains. Given no output schema, this ambiguity leaves the agent guessing about the return value.
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, and the schema correctly reflects that with an empty object. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the 100% schema coverage ensures no ambiguity. This meets the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 identifies the action as retrieving version information, with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate this from other getters like get_premiere_state or get_capabilities, and the 'expanded operation' prefix adds noise.
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 alternatives. With many sibling tools that fetch state or info, the absence of any contextual hints or exclusions leaves the agent without criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.