Export captions from Adobe Premiere Pro to SRT, SCC, MCC, or other formats by specifying an output file path and optional caption track.
Export captions to a file (SRT, SCC, MCC, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Export format (default: srt) | |
| outputPath | Yes | Output file path | |
| trackIndex | No | Caption track index to export (default: 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Export ... to a file' but never states that it writes to disk, whether an existing file at outputPath is overwritten, whether it requires an open sequence or caption track, or what happens on failure — all material for a file-writing operation.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably over-trimmed rather than bloated, so it earns high but not top marks on structure.
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?
The tool is simple (three params, one required) and the schema is fully described, so most of the calling contract is covered elsewhere. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no information about side effects on disk or which sequence/track the export draws from.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about outputPath or trackIndex, and its 'SRT, SCC, MCC, etc.' phrasing actually misleads by implying open-ended formats when the enum is a closed set of five.
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?
Specific verb (Export) plus specific resource (captions) and a parenthetical listing output formats, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not distinguish itself from neighbouring exporters (export_sequence, export_aaf) or from import_captions beyond the verb, so a sibling-aware sentence is missing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus export_sequence or export_direct, no prerequisite such as an active sequence or existing caption track, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.