Delete Premiere Pro sequence markers by name, time range, or all at once to clean up timelines and remove unwanted marker data.
Premiere Pro: delete sequence markers — all, by name, or in a time range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Seconds on the timeline (or timecode "HH:MM:SS:FF"). | |
| from | No | Seconds on the timeline (or timecode "HH:MM:SS:FF"). | |
| 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 already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only additional behavioral signal is the implicit 'all' mode; it does not state that omission of every parameter deletes everything, that deletion is irreversible (no undo note), or how the active-vs-named sequence is chosen at delete time.
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 front-loaded sentence with a host prefix and no filler; every clause maps to a capability. It is slightly too compressed for a destructive zero-required-parameter tool, but nothing 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?
A destructive tool with zero required parameters and no output schema needs an explicit statement that empty arguments mean 'delete all markers' and that the operation cannot be undone; the description only hints at this. The return/confirmation behavior is left unstated as well.
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 75% (the `name` parameter is undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by naming the 'by name' mode, while also implying from/to form a range pair. This mode-to-parameter mapping is genuine added value beyond the schema, though it never says fields are optional/independent or what happens with only `from` supplied.
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 (delete sequence markers) and enumerates the three selection modes (all, by name, time range). It does not distinguish itself from pr_addMarkers, pr_getSelection, or the AE counterpart ae_deleteMarkers, but the host prefix and the verb make the scope unambiguous.
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?
'all, by name, or in a time range' telegraphs which parameter combination selects which behavior, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pr_addMarkers/pr_getSelection, and no warning that calling it with zero arguments (all params optional) wipes every marker on the sequence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.