Adjust a Premiere Pro clip’s audio pan to place sound in the stereo field and correct channel balance.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: set clip pan.
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": "set_clip_pan"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to the clip's current pan value. The description adds no behavioral insight beyond the implied mutation.
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?
While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to provide essential details and does not front-load useful information. A concise description should still include enough to guide usage, which this lacks.
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 complexity of Premiere Pro operations and the large set of sibling tools, this description is woefully incomplete. It lacks behavior, parameters, output type, and usage context. The absence of any detail makes it impossible for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 input schema defines zero properties and allows arbitrary additional properties, so the schema itself provides no parameter documentation. The description does not compensate by explaining what parameters the tool expects (e.g., pan value, clip identifier). Schema coverage is technically 100% because there are no properties, but this is meaningless without parameter descriptions.
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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: set clip pan' barely goes beyond the tool name, using the same verb and resource. It does not clarify what 'pan' refers to (e.g., audio pan, camera pan) nor distinguish from sibling tools like set_clip_volume or set_clip_scale. It is essentially a tautology.
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 context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description merely labels the operation without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.