Export a Premiere Pro sequence to Final Cut Pro XML, AAF, or a trimmed standalone .prproj for interchange with After Effects, DaVinci Resolve, and other editing tools.
Premiere Pro: export the sequence as Final Cut Pro XML (interchange with AE/DaVinci/others), as an AAF, or as a standalone trimmed .prproj (exportAsProject).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| format | 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 readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this writes something without destroying project state. The description adds genuinely new context - that the .prproj output is a 'standalone trimmed' copy, implying media/trimming behavior - but says nothing about overwriting an existing file at path or what the call returns.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the app, verb, and resource before the format list. It earns its space, though the AAF mention that no enum value supports is wasted and mildly confusing.
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 3-parameter file-writing tool with no output schema, the description leaves key facts unstated: what path means, whether existing output is overwritten, and what happens to media references in the exported XML/AAF. It also fails to describe the 'otio' format option that the schema permits.
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% (only 'sequence' is documented), so the description must carry the rest - but it does not name the 'path' parameter or say whether it is a file path or directory. Worse, it lists 'AAF' as a format while the enum offers fcpxml/prproj/otio and never mentions 'otio' at all, so an agent mapping the description to enum values can be misled.
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 (export) and resource (the sequence) and enumerates the target formats, which tells an agent exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from sibling pr_export or pr_exportFrame, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.
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 parenthetical 'interchange with AE/DaVinci/others' implies when this is the right export path (moving to another NLE), which is useful implicit guidance. However it never explicitly says when to prefer this over pr_export or pr_exportFrame, and gives no prerequisites such as an open sequence or required permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.