Imports the active Photoshop document or Illustrator artboard export into a Premiere Pro bin, with optional track placement at a set time and duration.
Photoshop / Illustrator → Premiere Pro: save the active PS document (PSD or PNG) or export the active AI artboard (PNG), import into a Premiere bin and optionally place on a track at time with a duration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bin | No | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| time | No | ||
| track | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| sequence | No |
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-destructive write with no open-world access. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the source document is saved/exported (a side effect in PS/AI), the asset lands in a bin, and clip placement on a track+time+duration is optional rather than automatic. It stops short of explaining failure modes (e.g., Premiere not running) or what happens on bin name collisions.
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 that opens with the source→target arrow mapping, then walks the pipeline steps in execution order. Dense with no filler, appropriately sized for a seven-parameter tool.
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 mutation tool with seven undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits several things an agent needs: units for time/duration, the role of 'sequence' (implied prerequisite for clip placement), defaults for format/bin, and whether the call returns the imported item. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0% schema description coverage the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does account for six of the seven: from, format (PSD/PNG for PS, PNG-only for AI), bin, track, time, duration. But it never mentions the 'sequence' parameter at all, gives no units for time/duration (seconds vs frames), and states no defaults for format or bin.
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 pipeline with concrete verbs and resources: save/export the active PS document or AI artboard, import into a Premiere bin, optionally place on a track. The 'from' enum values (ps/ai) are spelled out in prose, so the agent can tell this apart from xapp_aeCompToPremiere or xapp_mogrtToPremiere without opening the schema.
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 implied by the source/target framing (PS/AI assets into Premiere), which rules out the AE and MOGRT siblings. However, there is no explicit 'use when' statement, no prerequisites (does Premiere need an open project?), and no stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.