Export the active Premiere Pro sequence’s audio as an OMF file, with optional sample rate, bit depth, and handle frame settings for handoff to audio post.
Export the active sequence audio as OMF
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outputPath | Yes | ||
| sampleRate | No | ||
| handleFrames | No | ||
| bitsPerSample | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says what is exported. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, permissions, active-sequence requirements, output file handling, or other operational constraints an agent would need for a safe export.
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 wasted wording. It is concise and appropriately structured, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient 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 an export tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It states the general action but leaves critical invocation details—especially the required output path and export settings—unaddressed.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters. It does not explain outputPath, sampleRate, handleFrames, or bitsPerSample, so the description provides no semantic guidance beyond the bare schema.
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: export the active sequence audio as OMF. The OMF format makes it more specific than a generic audio export, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like export_aaf or export_audio.
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 implies when the tool might be used—when OMF output is needed—but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention when to choose export_aaf, export_fcp_xml, or export_audio instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.