Retrieve detailed information about a specific Premiere Pro timeline clip, including effects, properties, linked clips, and settings, to inspect or troubleshoot edits.
Get detailed information about a specific clip on the timeline (effects, properties, linked clips, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index |
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 must carry the behavioral burden, and "Get" at least establishes a read-only, non-mutating operation. It also discloses the breadth of returned data (effects, properties, linked clips). However, it says nothing about error behavior for invalid indices, whether the clip must be selected/active, or the shape of the result.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and the returned-data examples in parentheses. The trailing "etc." slightly weakens precision, but there is no wasted text.
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 is the only source of return-value information, and it only gestures at contents via examples. It is adequate to identify the tool but leaves an agent uncertain about result shape and failure conditions.
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 documented, including the video/audio enum for trackType. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — it does not clarify index base (0- vs 1-based), whether indices are scoped to the active sequence, or how trackType interacts with trackIndex. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ("Get detailed information about a specific clip on the timeline") and enumerates what kind of detail is returned (effects, properties, linked clips). This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like get_timeline_clips, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from narrower readers such as get_clip_effects, get_clip_transform, or get_clip_metadata.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling clip-inspection tools (get_clip_effects, get_clip_transform, get_clip_metadata, get_clip_speed). Usage is only inferable from the name and the phrase "on the timeline"; there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.