List clips, sequences, and bins in a Premiere Pro project panel bin, optionally including items inside sub-bins, to inspect project contents before editing.
List items (clips, sequences, bins) in a bin of the project panel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binPath | No | Bin path like 'Footage/Interviews' ('' = project root) | |
| recursive | No | Include items inside sub-bins (default false) |
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. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the tool discloses item types, but it does not mention return ordering, permissions, error behavior, or what happens with empty or missing bins.
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 words. It states the resource, item types, and location efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema is well documented, but the description lacks sibling differentiation from find_project_items and gives no detail about the returned item structure. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps for an agent choosing among similar 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 100%, and the schema already explains binPath syntax and the recursive default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb and resource: list items, and clarifies the item types (clips, sequences, bins) within a bin of the project panel. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from the closely related sibling find_project_items.
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 'in a bin of the project panel' implies the use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over find_project_items, get_project_item_info, or get_project_panel_selection. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.