List clips, bins, and sequences in the Premiere Pro project panel, optionally scoped to a specific bin or recursively. Use it to inspect project structure before editing or automation.
List all items (clips, bins, sequences) in the project panel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binPath | No | Path to a specific bin, or empty for root | |
| recursive | No | Whether to list items recursively (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions, result size, ordering, or whether the call is scoped to the current project – all things an agent would want for a panel-enumeration tool.
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 zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the behavioral or scoping information the tool needs.
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?
For a simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is minimally adequate: it defines the resource. It omits return shape and the root-vs-recursive behavior, which are left entirely to the schema and caller inference.
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%, and both binPath and recursive are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about bin path semantics or the recursion default, 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 ('List') and resource ('items in the project panel') and enumerates the item types (clips, bins, sequences), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like find_project_items or get_project_item_info, which prevents a 5.
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: enumerating the project panel suggests use when you need a full inventory, but the description never says when to prefer find_project_items (likely filtered lookup) or get_project_item_info (single item). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.