Export a single frame from a Premiere Pro timeline as an image (JPEG, PNG, TIFF, etc.) at a specified time or current playhead position.
Export a single frame as an image (JPEG, PNG, TIFF, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time | No | Time in seconds to capture (omit for current playhead position) | |
| format | No | Image format (default: png) | |
| outputPath | Yes | Full output file path (e.g. 'C:/output/frame.png') |
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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what is written to disk, whether an existing file is overwritten, where the frame is sourced from, or what happens on failure. 'Export ... as an image' plus a required outputPath only hints at a file write.
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 no wasted clauses. The trailing 'etc.' is mildly loose given the format enum is fixed, but overall it is tight and readable.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the frame source (active sequence vs source monitor), overwrite behavior, and success signal. None of that is present, leaving real ambiguity for a file-writing operation.
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 (time, format, outputPath) are documented in the schema, including the enum of formats and the default of png. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 ('Export a single frame as an image') and the 'single frame' scoping distinguishes it from sequence-level siblings like export_sequence and render_sequence_preview. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the resource scope is unambiguous.
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 by the word 'frame' versus siblings that handle whole sequences. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over export_sequence, render_sequence_preview, or freeze_frame, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active sequence or playhead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.