Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Premiere Pro

MCP Premiere Pro

by Miinwan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_metadata

Retrieve project and XMP metadata for a Premiere Pro project item by ID to inspect asset details before editing.

Instructions

Gets project metadata and XMP metadata for a project item.

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": {
      "projectItemId": "<projectItemId>"
    },
    "name": "get_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectItemIdYesThe ID of the project item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'gets', but gives no details about return format, potential failure modes, or how the two metadata types are combined. This is adequate but minimal for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence with every word earning its place. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter, but the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify what 'project metadata' and 'XMP metadata' mean in practical terms and what the caller receives. It does not, and it leaves ambiguity against similarly named sibling tools.

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% for the single parameter, and its description ('The ID of the project item') already conveys the meaning. The tool description only restates this concept ('for a project item') without adding format, scope, or usage details, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool gets two specific types of metadata for a project item, using a concrete verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_xmp_metadata or get_project_item_info, which likely overlap in functionality.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_xmp_metadata, get_project_item_info, or get_xmp_metadata. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases.

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