Adds a marker at a specified time to the active Premiere Pro sequence, supporting optional name, type, color, comment, duration, and weblink URL.
Add a marker to the active sequence
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | For weblink markers | |
| name | No | ||
| time | Yes | Seconds | |
| type | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| duration | No | Seconds (0 = point marker) |
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 behavioral burden. It only states that a marker is added to the active sequence, without explaining prerequisites, mutation side effects, duplicate-marker behavior, or what happens with different marker types or durations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the missing detail is better scored under contextual completeness.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It should at least clarify sequence-level marker semantics, key parameters, and how this differs from the other marker-creation 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 only 43%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it adds no parameter meaning at all. The schema partially documents time, duration, and url, but name, comment, type, and color are left without descriptive guidance.
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 states a specific verb and resource: add a marker, scoped to the active sequence. This scope helps distinguish it from seq-level siblings like add_clip_marker and add_project_item_marker, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 phrase 'active sequence' implies when this tool applies, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives such as add_clip_marker, add_project_item_marker, or add_markers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.