Retrieves markers inside a specified Premiere Pro timeline clip using track type, track index, and clip index, so you can inspect marker positions at sequence times.
Markers within a clip (sequence times)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index on the track, 0-based from the left (see get_timeline_clips) | |
| trackType | Yes | Track type | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Track index, 0-based (V1 = 0, A1 = 0) |
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. It hints that returned times are in sequence timebase with "(sequence times)", which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ordering, what marker fields come back, behavior when the clip has no markers, or whether this is read-only.
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 terse parenthetical phrase with zero padding and the key scoping detail up front. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
Three required parameters and no output schema mean the description should describe what a marker looks like (name, time, color, comment) and the ordering of results. It offers only "(sequence times)", leaving the return value largely unexplained for a lookup tool.
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%, so clipIndex, trackType, and trackIndex are already documented with 0-based indexing notes. The description adds nothing about which parameters identify the clip, so baseline 3 applies.
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 phrase "Markers within a clip" identifies the resource (clip-scoped markers) and implicitly distinguishes it from get_markers and get_project_item_markers, but there is no verb and no explicit scope statement, so an agent must infer that this is a read operation returning markers belonging to a single clip.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the several marker siblings listed (get_markers, get_project_item_markers, remove_marker, clear_markers). The agent gets no context or exclusions, only a bare resource label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.