Adjusts the volume of a selected clip in Premiere Pro to set audio levels precisely.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: set clip volume.
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": "set_clip_volume"
}
}| 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It gives no behavioral details: what happens to the current volume, does it require a selected clip, what units are used (dB, percentage), is it a gain or absolute setting? Nothing beyond the act of setting volume is disclosed, making it opaque.
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 concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded, which is good for scanning. However, it is under-specified and lacks structure to convey any useful context. It is concise but at the cost of meaning, so a middle score is appropriate.
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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It is clearly incomplete: it does not state the effect on the clip, the default value, error conditions, or how it integrates with other clip operations. This is nearly as minimal as the 'process' example and fails to provide necessary context.
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 zero parameters, so the description must explain what value the volume is set to. It only says 'set clip volume' without specifying a target value or default. This leaves the agent guessing whether it's a toggle, a preset, or a fixed level. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameters.
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 clearly identifies the action: setting clip volume. It distinguishes from siblings like set_clip_opacity or set_clip_pan by naming volume specifically. However, it lacks specifics about the scope (which clip, what volume value) and uses vague 'expanded operation' filler, so not 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, target selection (e.g., selected clip), or exclusions. The agent has no idea when this should be invoked or what conditions apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.