Retrieves the work area in and out points for a specified Premiere Pro sequence using its sequence ID, so you can inspect or reuse the sequence’s defined range.
Gets the work area in/out points for a sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sequenceId | Yes | The ID of the sequence |
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'gets' without explaining return format, error handling, or whether it returns timecode or frames. It does not disclose what happens when the sequenceId is invalid or whether the work area might be disabled.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. This is appropriately sized for a simple getter.
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 simplicity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description still feels incomplete. It does not clarify what 'work area' means, what format the in/out points are returned in, or how this differs from get_sequence_in_out_points. For a user deciding among many sibling tools, this lacks sufficient context.
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 schema already fully describes the single parameter (sequenceId as 'The ID of the sequence') with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter or its expected format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 it gets the work area in/out points for a sequence, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_work_area and is_work_area_enabled, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_sequence_in_out_points, which might be confused as similar.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like get_sequence_in_out_points or set_work_area.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.