Fetch metadata and properties for a Premiere Pro project item, including its name, type, and file path. Use it to inspect source footage or timeline clips before editing.
Premiere Pro expanded operation: get project item info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0-ibintec.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure—and it delivers nothing: no read-only confirmation, no side-effect declaration, no error/performance notes, no mention of what happens on missing items. While not contradictory, the phrasing 'expanded operation' is content-free and fails to convey any behavioral traits beyond the tool's own name.
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 short, but that is under-specification, not crafted conciseness. 'Expanded operation' is filler jargon, and the remaining words restate the tool name. No useful information has been front-loaded because there is no useful information present.
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 getter with no params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole carrier of meaning—yet it leaves the agent clueless about what 'project item info' contains, how it differs from get_item_info or get_full_project_overview, or when it returns useful results. Given the huge sibling surface area (270+ tools), this is a critical completeness gap.
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 declares 0 parameters and 0 required parameters with 100% schema description coverage (vacuously), so the rubric's baseline for 0 params is 4. The description isn't required to explain parameter semantics it doesn't have, though the odd empty schema (additionalProperties: {}) goes unremarked.
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 "Premiere Pro expanded operation: get project item info" is a near-tautology that restates the tool name. The phrase 'expanded operation' is unhelpful jargon, and the description provides no specificity about what the info contains or what a 'project item' is. In a sibling set with get_item_info, get_full_project_overview, get_full_clip_info, and find_project_item_by_name, there is zero differentiation.
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 when-to-use guidance exists. The description never tells the agent when to choose this getter over the many overlapping siblings (get_item_info, get_full_project_overview, get_bin_contents), nor does it mention prerequisites, ordering, or alternatives. This is only a 2, not a 1, because it isn't actively misleading—it's just empty.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.