Retrieve the current value of a specific effect property on a video or audio clip by track, clip, and effect index. Use it to inspect Premiere Pro project settings before making edits.
Get the current value of a specific effect property
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index | |
| effectIndex | Yes | Effect/component index | |
| propertyName | Yes | Display name of the property |
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 whole burden. 'Current value' implies a read, but the description says nothing about whether the call fails when the track/clip/effect index is invalid, whether keyframed properties return the value at the playhead or the static value, or what the returned value looks like — and there is no output schema to cover that.
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 redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
Five required parameters form a deep address path (track type, track, clip, effect, property) and there is neither an output schema nor annotations. The description should clarify that the effect lives on a clip, how propertyName is matched (display name, case sensitivity), and the shape of the returned value; none of that is present.
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 five parameters (trackType, trackIndex, clipIndex, effectIndex, propertyName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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 ('Get') and resource ('the current value of a specific effect property'), which is more specific than a bare restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_clip_effects or set_effect_property, leaving the agent to infer the read-vs-list-vs-write distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the natural alternative (set_effect_property), and no prerequisites such as requiring the effect to already exist on the clip. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.