Manage Premiere Pro sequences by adding video or audio tracks, muting or locking tracks, and setting insert targets to control where edits land.
Premiere Pro: track operations — add video/audio tracks, mute/unmute, lock/unlock, target/untarget tracks (for inserts/pastes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| tracks | 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 this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the targeting-for-inserts/pastes context, but doesn't say what happens to existing tracks on add, whether operations are undoable, or any sequence-state preconditions.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the domain and resource, then the operation groups. Zero wasted words.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what operations exist but not how to specify tracks or counts, nor what state it requires. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it correctly on the two undocumented parameters.
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?
With only 25% schema coverage, the description does help by enumerating the action values, and the 'sequence' param is documented in the schema. However, 'count' and 'tracks' are left completely undefined in both schema and description — no format for track identifiers (name vs index) and no meaning for count when adding vs muting.
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?
The description names the app (Premiere Pro), the resource (tracks), and enumerates the eight operations, mirroring the action enum. An agent can tell this is distinct from pr_clipOps or pr_sequenceOps, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
Usage is only implied through the operation list; the parenthetical '(for inserts/pastes)' hints why targeting matters. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., sequence must be open), and no named alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.