Execute a specific Premiere Pro tool by exact name after search_tools, so hosts limited to a small always-on set can still run actions like trim_clip.
Run a Premiere tool by exact name. Use after search_tools. Hosts that only advertise the small always-on set cannot call trim_clip etc. as top-level MCP tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact tool name returned by search_tools | |
| arguments | No | Arguments for that tool |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says 'Run a Premiere tool' but does not disclose that this is an arbitrary passthrough capable of side-effecting operations like trim_clip, nor does it mention error behavior when the tool name is invalid.
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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The host-limitation sentence is useful context but slightly jargon-heavy; still, every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
The description covers the key prerequisite ('Use after search_tools') and exact-name matching. However, it omits guidance on using get_tool_schema to fetch the target tool's argument schema, and gives no return/error expectations despite having no output schema or annotations.
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 input schema already documents both parameters: name is 'Exact tool name returned by search_tools' and arguments is 'Arguments for that tool'. The description reinforces exactness and ordering but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, such as how arguments should be structured per the target tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') with a specific resource ('a Premiere tool by exact name') and clarifies this is the generic execution entry point. Naming trim_clip and contrasting it with top-level MCP tools helps distinguish it from siblings like search_tools and get_tool_schema.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use after search_tools', giving clear ordering guidance, and it explains the host limitation that makes invoke_tool necessary. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_tool_schema for inspecting a tool's schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.