Retrieves a video clip's motion and opacity transform values—position, scale, rotation, anchor, crop, and opacity—from a Premiere Pro timeline using track and clip indices.
Motion/Opacity of a video clip in pixels: x, y, scale, rotation, anchor, crop, opacity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index on the track, 0-based from the left (see get_timeline_clips) | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not say this is a read-only operation. It also omits what is returned, error behavior for invalid indices, or whether the values reflect keyframed/animated state. The property list hints at the data domain but provides no behavioral context.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is not front-loaded with an action verb and reads as a terse field list. The core purpose is buried in the property enumeration rather than stated first.
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 two-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned and that it is a safe read. It provides only a partial field list and leaves the agent to infer return shape and behavior. This is insufficient for correct invocation without inspecting the schema and name.
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 trackIndex and clipIndex are already fully documented in the schema, including 0-based indices and V1/A1 conventions. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 lists the transform properties (x, y, scale, rotation, anchor, crop, opacity) but never states the action, such as 'retrieves' or 'returns'. The name implies a getter, but the description alone reads as a field inventory rather than a clear verb+resource purpose. It does not differentiate from the sibling set_clip_transform.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_clip_info or set_clip_transform. The agent must infer from the name that this reads transform values. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.