Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Premiere Pro

MCP Premiere Pro

by Miinwan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

attach_custom_property

Attach a custom property to a Premiere Pro project element to store project-specific metadata and support automated workflows.

Instructions

Premiere Pro expanded operation: attach custom property.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "attach_custom_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It fails to disclose whether the property is written to a file, a project item, or a sequence; whether it can overwrite existing properties; or whether any side effects or permissions are needed. The empty annotation block offers no mitigation.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb 'attach'. It contains no redundancy or clutter.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The operation has no documented input meaning, no output schema, no annotations, and the short description gives no context about which Premiere Pro entity can carry custom properties. Given the large sibling collection of metadata tools and effect tools, the description is insufficient to distinguish this operation from alternatives.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema is a permissive object with arbitrary property names and values, but the description defines none of them. With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description should compensate by naming the expected property shape, but it does not reference the schema at all.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description uses the verb 'attach' and mentions 'custom property' as the resource, but never specifies what the property is, its allowed values, or how the attachment is performed. It reads as a paraphrase of the tool name rather than a functional definition, and is indistinguishable from several sibling metadata tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like metadata setters/getters, project info tools, or composition tools. Absent any exclusions, prerequisites, or example use patterns the agent must infer the tool's role from its name alone.

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