Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Premiere Pro

MCP Premiere Pro

by Miinwan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_markers

Lists all markers in any specified Premiere Pro sequence, including inactive ones, so you can review or manage timing points by sequence ID.

Instructions

Lists all markers in the specified sequence. The sequence does not have to be the active one.

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": {
      "sequenceId": "<sequenceId>"
    },
    "name": "list_markers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sequenceIdYesThe sequence ID (GUID) as returned in the "id" field by list_sequences or get_active_sequence

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It usefully discloses that the active sequence is not required, but it does not disclose the return shape, ordering, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the implied list semantics.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, and the important non-active-sequence constraint is added in a compact second sentence.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter list operation with fully documented schema coverage, the description is largely complete. The main missing piece is the absence of an explicit return-value description since no output schema is provided.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already explains where to obtain the sequenceId. The tool description only reinforces 'the specified sequence' without adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the verb ('Lists'), the resource ('all markers'), and the scope ('in the specified sequence'). It distinguishes itself from type-filtered or clip-marker siblings by emphasizing 'all' and 'specified sequence,' though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It provides useful context by noting the sequence does not need to be the active one, which clarifies when this can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_sequence_markers_by_type or when a filtered marker query would be preferable.

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