Moves the Premiere Pro timeline playhead to a specified time or timecode, optionally targeting a named sequence; omit the sequence to use the active one.
Premiere Pro: move the timeline playhead to a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | Yes | 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 declare destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is low, yet the description adds nothing beyond purpose. It does not say whether the playhead move requires an active sequence, whether it is persisted to the project, or whether it interacts with in/out points.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste and the resource up front. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. Only the active-sequence precondition and side-effect behavior are left implicit, which the optional `sequence` parameter partially hints at.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both `time` (seconds or "HH:MM:SS:FF") and `sequence` (omit for active sequence) fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('move the timeline playhead') plus the target ('to a time'), and the 'Premiere Pro:' prefix disambiguates it from the many ae_/ps_/ai_ siblings. It is clear without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent timeline tools like pr_setInOut.
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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given; usage is only implied by the operation name. For a simple navigation tool that is largely self-evident, but an agent gets no guidance on ordering (e.g., must a sequence be open/active first) or on when pr_setInOut would be the better choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.