Retrieve the full JSON input schema for a specific Premiere tool by name before calling it, so you can provide valid arguments to invoke it.
Return the full JSON input schema for one Premiere tool name from search_tools. After reading it, call invoke_tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact tool name, e.g. trim_clip |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that this tool only returns a schema and implies that it does not execute tools by instructing the agent to call invoke_tool afterward. It does not cover error cases, but for an introspection tool this is adequate.
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?
Two concise sentences provide the core behavior and the intended next action. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and how to continue the workflow. It could mention behavior for an invalid or unknown tool name, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.
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 schema coverage is 100% and already documents the 'name' parameter with an example. The description adds only that the name should come from search_tools, which is helpful context but does not substantially enrich parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 states the resource: 'full JSON input schema for one Premiere tool name.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by tying it to search_tools and instructing that invoke_tool should come next.
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?
The description places the tool in a workflow: tool names come from search_tools, and after reading the schema the agent should call invoke_tool. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, but the sequential guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.