Inspect the open Adobe Premiere Pro 2019 project to retrieve its name, file path, document ID, proxy state, sequence count, active sequence summary, and root bin item counts.
Inspect the currently open Adobe Premiere Pro 2019 project: project name, file path, document ID, proxy state, sequence count, active sequence summary, and root bin item counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies read-only and the description scopes it to the 'currently open' project, which is useful. But it says nothing about error conditions (e.g., no open project), permissions, or response shape beyond the field names.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The comma-separated field list is dense but appropriate for communicating scope.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the exact data returned (name, path, document ID, proxy state, sequence count, active sequence summary, root bin counts). An agent knows what to expect, though no annotation coverage means failure modes remain unstated.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies. The description adds no parameter concepts, which is correct since there are none to document.
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?
Specific verb ('Inspect') plus resource ('currently open Adobe Premiere Pro 2019 project'), followed by an explicit enumeration of returned fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling listing tools like list_sequences and list_project_items, which enumerate items rather than summarizing the project.
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?
Usage is implied: 'currently open project' and the summary-style field list signal a top-level overview call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative summary tools (premiere_health_check, get_active_sequence) an agent might confuse this with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.