Lists available video, audio, and transition effect names for Adobe Premiere Pro timelines. Filter by substring like 'blur' or 'dissolve' to find the exact effect to apply.
Names of available effects or transitions (use a filter, the full lists are long)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| filter | No | Case-insensitive substring, e.g. 'blur', 'lumetri', 'dissolve' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real traits: output is just names (not effect objects with properties) and the unfiltered lists are long, implying the caller should narrow the query. It says nothing about permissions, project prerequisites, or whether results are project-scoped or application-global.
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 plus a parenthetical rationale, with no wasted words. Terseness borders on fragmentary ('Names of available...' has no verb), but every element carries information.
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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, stating that the return value is names is the key missing piece and it is present. However, nothing explains which kind values yield which catalogs or whether a project context is required, leaving gaps an agent must discover at runtime.
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 coverage is 50%: 'filter' is documented in the schema, while 'kind' is only an enum with no prose. The description's 'effects or transitions' does map onto the kind enum's effect-vs-transition split and reinforces why a filter is needed, but it doesn't explain the video/audio axis of the enum.
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?
States the resource and result precisely: a catalog of available effects or transitions, returning names. 'Available' distinguishes it from applied-item tools like get_clip_effects or get_transitions, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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 only guidance is 'use a filter, the full lists are long', which is advice about a parameter rather than about when to choose this tool over get_transitions, get_clip_effects, or apply_effect. No prerequisites (e.g. whether a project must be open) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.