Define the work area in and out points on the active sequence by specifying start and end times in seconds, so you can target a specific range for playback or export.
Set the work area bar in/out points on the active sequence
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inPoint | No | Work area in point in seconds | |
| outPoint | No | Work area out point in seconds |
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 carries the full burden, yet it omits key behavior: both parameters are optional and it never says what happens when only one is supplied, whether existing work area values are overwritten or cleared, and what the work area actually governs (preview render range / export range). Only the mutation itself is inferable from 'Set'.
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 the resource first and scope last; nothing is wasted. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity reads as under-specification rather than tight writing.
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 timeline tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps an agent would want: the effect of the work area on export/preview, the handling of omitted optional parameters, and how it relates to the sibling get_work_area and clear_* tools.
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 coverage is 100%, so inPoint/outPoint units (seconds) and meaning are already documented in the schema; the description adds no ordering, range, or optionality guidance. 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+resource (set the work area bar in/out points) and scopes it to the active sequence, which is a distinct Premiere concept. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as set_sequence_in_out or clear_sequence_in_out, leaving the agent to know that 'work area' differs from sequence in/out.
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: the phrase 'on the active sequence' hints at a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g., set_sequence_in_out for the sequence's own mark in/out, or get_work_area to read the current values).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.