Locate the original source clip and exact frame under the sequence playhead in Premiere Pro, then open it for editing.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: match frame.
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": "match_frame"
}
}| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about side effects, required selections, or what state changes occur. 'Match frame' is ambiguous and could imply navigation, selection, or source-monitor switching, but none of this is explained.
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 vague phrase, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not earn its place because it provides no actionable information. A well-structured description would front-load the core purpose and add necessary context.
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 lack of annotations, schema detail, and output schema, the description is the only source of information. It provides almost nothing: no indication of what the operation does, when to use it, or what the result will be. This is completely inadequate for an agent to make an informed decision.
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 has no parameters (0), which normally warrants a baseline of 4. However, the description does not clarify what the operation acts upon (e.g., the current playhead position, selected clip, or active sequence). Even with zero parameters, the tool must operate on some implicit context, and the description fails to specify it.
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 simply states 'match frame' which is essentially the tool name. It does not specify what the operation does (e.g., locating the source frame in the source monitor) or how it differs from sibling tools like capture_frame or set_playhead_position. It is a tautology with no added meaning.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, intended contexts, or exclusions. Without any context, an agent cannot determine if match_frame is the right tool for a given task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.