Adds editable text captions or subtitles to a Premiere Pro sequence by converting timed cues into an SRT and creating a caption track.
Premiere Pro: add text captions/subtitles from cues [{start, end, text}] (seconds) — builds an .srt and creates a caption track on the sequence. Reliable editable on-screen text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cues | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| sequence | No | Sequence name; omit for the active sequence. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the generic non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile; the description adds real behavior beyond them by disclosing that it builds an .srt file and creates a caption track on the sequence, and that the resulting text is editable. It stops short of saying what happens if the sequence lacks an open state or whether an existing caption track is reused/overwritten.
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?
One compact sentence with the action and input format front-loaded; the trailing 'Reliable editable on-screen text' is mildly promotional but short enough not to bloat it. Nothing else is wasted.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers the core mechanics: input format, timing units, and the side effect on the sequence. Minor omissions (behavior of the 'name' param, what happens with multiple caption tracks) keep it short of complete.
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?
Schema coverage is only 33% and the schema does not specify units, so the description's 'seconds' for start/end and the [{start, end, text}] shape meaningfully compensate. The optional 'name' parameter is never explained, leaving a gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('add text captions/subtitles'), names the application (Premiere Pro), and explains the input shape (cues of {start, end, text} in seconds) plus the output artifact (an .srt and a caption track on the sequence). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling pr_importCaptions, which also brings captions in, so an agent can't tell from this text which one to pick.
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?
The description implies the use case (generating editable on-screen text from a cue list) but never states when to use this over pr_importCaptions, nor any preconditions like a sequence being open. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.