Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Apply Lut

apply_lut

Assigns a selected .cube or .3dl LUT to a clip's color pipeline, but current CEP integration prevents it from taking effect; choose a creative Look in Lumetri Color instead.

Instructions

Unavailable on the CEP backend: Premiere's scripting API cannot load a LUT file into Lumetri Color. Its Input LUT and Look parameters are menu indexes over a curated set of bundled looks, and writing a file path to the LUT asset parameters is accepted but not rendered (seen on Premiere Pro 25.2.3, macOS, by comparing exported frames with the same LUT applied by ffmpeg; other builds were not tested). Fails before changing the clip. Apply the LUT in Lumetri Color > Creative > Look (Browse...) instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip
lut_pathYesFull path to the .cube or .3dl LUT file

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
dataNoTool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
toolYesThe registered MCP tool name.
errorNoFailure detail when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / description
      Previous value: -"Tool-specific result data when ok is true."New value: +"Tool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.4
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Tool-specific result data when ok is true."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Failure detail when ok is false.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether the tool completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "description": "The registered MCP tool name.",
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "tool"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations: discloses that the scripting API cannot load LUT files, that writing a LUT path is accepted but not rendered, that the tool fails before changing the clip, and specifies testing context on Premiere Pro 25.2.3 macOS. This tells the agent not to expect side effects, consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the unavailability warning and ordered logically: limitation, evidence, consequence, then alternative. The test-methodology sentence is long, but it supports the limitation claim; overall the description is slightly verbose for a non-functional tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description supplies the critical missing context: the tool is non-functional on this backend, what happens when it is called, and the recommended manual alternative. Nothing required to decide against invocation is missing.

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%, so node_id and lut_path are already documented in the schema. The description refers generally to writing a file path to LUT asset parameters but adds no parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the tool is unavailable on the CEP backend and cannot load a LUT file into Lumetri Color, which makes the actual behavior clear even though the intended action is implied by the name/title. It explains that it fails before changing the clip, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling color or effect tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent away from this tool and names the alternative: apply the LUT in Lumetri Color > Creative > Look (Browse...). It also makes clear the tool will not work before invocation, so there is no ambiguity about when to use it.

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