Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Premiere Pro

MCP Premiere Pro

by Miinwan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apply_lut

Applies a .cube or .3dl LUT to a Premiere Pro clip for color grading, with optional intensity control to adjust the effect.

Instructions

Applies a Look-Up Table (LUT) to a clip for color grading.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "clipId": "<clipId>",
      "lutPath": "<lutPath>"
    },
    "name": "apply_lut"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clipIdYesThe ID of the clip
lutPathYesThe absolute path to the .cube or .3dl LUT file
intensityNoLUT intensity (0-100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without addressing reversibility, impact on existing color grading, default intensity, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is immediately clear. No repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple operation, the description is minimal but lacks important context such as whether the LUT replaces existing color adjustments, the default intensity if omitted, and any side effects. No output schema exists, so the description should have provided more behavioral detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (clipId, lutPath, intensity). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Applies') and resource ('Look-Up Table (LUT) to a clip'), with a clear purpose ('for color grading'). It distinguishes itself from broader siblings like 'color_correct' by naming the exact operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'color_correct' or 'apply_effect'. The description does not provide context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools