Switches Adobe Premiere Pro to a specified workspace layout, such as Editing, Color, or Audio, so you can work in the right panel setup for each task.
Switch workspace (e.g. Editing, Color, Audio)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
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 disclosure burden and falls short: it doesn't say whether the name must match an existing workspace, what happens on an invalid name, whether the change is global UI state or per-project, or whether it returns anything. The examples of 'Editing, Color, Audio' are the only real signal about accepted values.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the useful examples immediately following. No filler, though the size reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.
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 single-parameter, non-destructive-feeling UI tool with no output schema, a terse description is defensible, and the value examples cover the biggest gap. What's still missing is the valid-value source and failure behavior, which matter because the schema provides nothing.
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 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no type detail beyond string, so the description must compensate. The examples 'Editing, Color, Audio' do add real meaning about expected values, but there is no exhaustive list, no mention of case sensitivity, and no pointer to get_workspaces for discovery.
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?
Specific verb ('Switch') plus resource ('workspace') makes the action unambiguous at a glance. The parenthetical examples clarify what a workspace is. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_workspaces (the read counterpart) or explain the relationship.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions get_workspaces as the way to discover valid workspace names. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.