Runs ExtendScript against Premiere Pro's QE DOM to access internal functions unavailable in the public API; return a JSON.stringify'd result.
Execute ExtendScript code using the QE (Quantum Engine) DOM. Enables access to internal Premiere functions not in the public API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script | Yes | ExtendScript code using qe.* objects. Must return a JSON.stringify'd result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says that arbitrary code runs with app-level privileges, whether scripts can mutate project state, what happens on script error, or what gets returned (the schema hints at JSON.stringify but the description is silent). For a code-execution tool this is a significant disclosure gap.
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?
Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is also the source of the missing safety context.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return shape, failure modes, and side effects on its own and does not. For an arbitrary-code-execution tool the definition is under-specified about consequences.
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?
One required parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already states the code must use qe.* objects and return a JSON.stringify'd result. The description adds only the framing 'using the QE DOM', which reinforces but does not extend the schema. 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?
A specific verb (Execute) plus a named resource (ExtendScript via the QE/Quantum Engine DOM), with a brief statement of why it exists: reaching internal Premiere functions outside the public API. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closely related execute_extendscript sibling, so distinctness must be inferred.
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 phrase 'internal Premiere functions not in the public API' implies when this tool is warranted over the public-API route, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and the obvious alternative (execute_extendscript) is never named. An agent must infer selection criteria from the mention of the QE DOM.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.