Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Adobe Premiere Pro MCP

Adobe Premiere Pro MCP

by compimprove
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_project_panel_metadata

Retrieve project panel metadata from an active Adobe Premiere Pro project to inspect asset structure, bins, sequences, and clip properties for use in automated editing workflows.

Instructions

Premiere Pro expanded operation: get project panel metadata.

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": "get_project_panel_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No behavioral information is given. The description does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it might have, or what the output format is. With no annotations, this lack of transparency leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's effects.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but not front-loaded with useful information. The generic 'Premiere Pro expanded operation' wastes space and adds no value, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 description is highly incomplete. It lacks details about the returned metadata, output structure, or any relevant context. With no annotations and no output schema, this tool definition is essentially a stub that does not equip an agent to understand its purpose or use it correctly.

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?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to explain. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, it is not a significant deficiency. However, it could have clarified what the tool returns or expected inputs if any existed.

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 simply restates the tool name ('get project panel metadata') with a generic prefix ('Premiere Pro expanded operation'), adding no distinguishing information. It does not clarify what specific metadata is retrieved or how it differs from other 'get' tools like get_project_info or get_sequence_settings.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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