Mutes or unmutes an entire audio track in a Premiere Pro sequence using its sequence ID and track index.
Mutes or unmutes an entire audio track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| muted | Yes | Whether to mute (true) or unmute (false) the track | |
| sequenceId | Yes | The ID of the sequence | |
| trackIndex | Yes | The index of the audio track |
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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the action but omits important context such as reversibility, effect on playback, interaction with clip-level mute settings, or whether any permissions or sequence state are required. It does not contradict annotations since none exist, but it provides minimal behavioral detail.
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 that is direct and to the point, with no filler. It effectively front-loads the purpose and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 mutation tool with a clear action and well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but lacks additional context such as the effect on the timeline (e.g., whether it applies to all clips, interaction with solo states), or the expected return value. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more explanation would improve completeness, but it is not severely deficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage nuances beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but no extra value is added.
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 ('Mutes or unmutes') and the target resource ('an entire audio track'), with sufficient specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like set_clip_volume or lock_track. It also implies the scope (whole track, not individual clips).
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 like set_clip_volume or adjust_audio_levels, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be the chosen tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.