Inspect a Premiere Pro sequence by listing all video and audio tracks with their properties and clips.
Lists all video and audio tracks in a specific sequence with their properties and clips.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sequenceId | Yes | The sequence ID (GUID) to list tracks for, as returned in the "id" field by list_sequences or get_active_sequence |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0-ibintec.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and states what is returned: tracks, their properties, and clips. It does not mention error behavior for invalid sequence IDs, ordering, or performance, but for a simple list tool this is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Lists') and covers the key result scope. There is no redundancy or placeholder text.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only list operation with a fully documented schema, the description is reasonably complete. It effectively summarizes what the operation returns—tracks, properties, and clips—though it omits any mention of error conditions or how this output differs from similar timeline/track inspection tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: sequenceId is fully documented as a GUID returned by list_sequences or get_active_sequence. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but offers no extra value.
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 that the tool lists all video and audio tracks in a specific sequence, including their properties and clips. It conveys a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly contrast with nearby introspection tools like get_sequence_structure or get_track_info.
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 provides no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as get_sequence_structure, get_track_info, get_timeline_summary, or get_full_sequence_info, nor does it describe exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.