Retrieves available workspaces in Adobe Premiere Pro to manage UI layouts for automated editing tasks.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: get workspaces.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_workspaces"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires an active project or connection, what happens if Premiere is not running, or the nature of the returned data. The phrase 'expanded operation' is obscure and adds no behavioral detail.
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 description is extremely short (one vague sentence). While brevity is valued, this is under-specification rather than concise. The phrase 'expanded operation' is filler and does not earn its place; it contributes nothing toward understanding the tool.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a highly complex environment (Premiere Pro), the description is grossly incomplete. It should at minimum state what kind of data is returned (list of workspace names?), whether the tool is safe to call anytime, and any prerequisites like verifying a connection.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is essentially empty (with only propertyNames constraint). Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and none are missing.
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?
The description says 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: get workspaces.' This is vague and tautological—it simply restates the tool name with a generic prefix. It doesn't state what the tool does, what information it returns, or how it differs from similar tools like set_workspace or get_encoder_presets.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings include set_workspace and other get_* tools, the description provides no context on the appropriate scenario for retrieving workspaces, such as before switching to a specific workspace or for UI customization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.