Export a Premiere Pro frame at a specified time or the current playhead as a PNG image so you can visually inspect the edit.
Premiere Pro: export the frame at a time (default playhead) as PNG and return it as an image to check the edit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| time | No | Seconds on the timeline (or timecode "HH:MM:SS:FF"). | |
| 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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, closed-world), so the description only needs to add delivery context — and it does, stating the frame comes back as an image rather than just being written to disk, which matters since there is no output schema. It still doesn't say what happens to the file at `path` or whether existing files are 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?
A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the application and the action, with the output format and default placed where they are immediately useful. Only the 'Premiere Pro:' prefix is redundant given the pr_ tool family.
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?
With zero required parameters and no output schema, the description does convey the return type and the playhead default, which is the minimum an agent needs to call it. It stops short of covering the destination file semantics for `path` and the failure behavior for an invalid time or sequence, which would complete the picture for a 3-param tool.
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 67%: `time` and `sequence` are documented in the schema (seconds vs. timecode, omit for active sequence), and the description adds the playhead default for `time`. The remaining parameter, `path`, is undocumented in both schema and description, so the agent must guess it is the output file destination.
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 ('export the frame at a time') plus output format (PNG) and delivery mode (returned as an image). This clearly separates it from pr_export (full sequence output) and ae_exportFrame (After Effects), though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 trailing clause 'to check the edit' implies the intended use case (visual verification of a cut), and the default-playhead note tells the agent time can be omitted. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this instead of pr_export or xapp_preview, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.