Export the active Premiere Pro sequence to an OMF file for audio interchange, with controls for output path, sample rate, bit depth, and handle duration.
Export the active sequence as an OMF file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outputPath | Yes | Full output file path (.omf) | |
| sampleRate | No | Sample rate in Hz (default: 48000) | |
| bitsPerSample | No | Bits per sample (default: 16) | |
| handleDuration | No | Handle duration in seconds |
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 and does not meet it. It doesn't disclose whether export is synchronous and slow, whether media is embedded or referenced, whether audio-only content is exported, what happens if no active sequence exists, or where the result goes beyond the outputPath parameter.
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 with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to gaps scored elsewhere rather than earning a top mark here.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description says nothing about return values, side effects, or failure conditions for a file-writing operation. Parameter documentation is fully covered by the schema, but the behavioral picture remains incomplete.
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 four parameters (outputPath, sampleRate, bitsPerSample, handleDuration) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter interaction, so the 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Export ... as an OMF file") and clarifies the implicit scope by naming "the active sequence", so the agent knows no sequence ID is needed. However, it does nothing to separate itself from close siblings like export_aaf or export_sequence, which an agent must choose between.
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 choose OMF over export_aaf, export_edl, export_final_cut_xml or export_sequence, and no prerequisites such as requiring an active sequence. The agent must infer the choice entirely from the format name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.