Imports media files into an Adobe Premiere Pro project, optionally placing them in a target bin or importing image sequences as numbered stills.
Import media files into the project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePaths | Yes | Array of absolute file paths to import | |
| targetBinPath | No | Target bin/folder path (e.g. 'Footage/Interviews') | |
| importAsNumberedStills | No | Import image sequences as numbered stills |
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 and delivers almost nothing: it doesn't say whether items are added to a bin, how duplicate paths are handled, whether the project must be open, or what the tool returns. Only the word 'Import' implies mutation. For a write-style operation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is room for a short clause on bin targeting or sequence handling without bloat.
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 annotations and no output schema mean the description must explain behavior, and it doesn't. With three parameters and many import-related siblings, an agent has no information on duplicate handling, return values, or error conditions — enough is missing to risk incorrect invocation.
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% (all three parameters, including filePaths, targetBinPath, and importAsNumberedStills, are documented with examples and types). The description adds no semantics beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 ('Import') and resource ('media files') with destination ('into the project'), which is more specific than the name alone. However, it does nothing to separate itself from close siblings such as import_sequences, import_ae_comps, or relink_media, so an agent cannot tell which import path applies from the description alone.
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 statement of when to use this versus import_sequences or refresh_media, no prerequisites (project must be open, files must exist on disk), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.