Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Bind Media Provenance

bind_media_provenance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Binds approved source/proxy hashes and original availability to an analysis provider and timeline revision, so export verification stays distinct from proxy flags and artifact validation.

Instructions

Bind approved source/proxy content hashes and original availability to an analysis provider and timeline revision. Proxy flags do not prove delivery provider; caller-evidenced full-resolution export remains distinct from artifact validation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
provenanceYesStrict provenance: source_id, source_sha256/null, proxy_sha256/null, original_offline, proxy_attached, analysis_provider original/proxy, snapshot_revision, export_provider_verified.
expected_cep_targetNoOptional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
expected_project_pathNoOptional absolute saved-project path. Every generated CEP command refuses before its body when the active project differs or is unsaved. UXP commands refuse this CEP-only guard; local-only tools do not inspect Premiere. Omit to keep existing behavior.

Output 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.
receiptNoVersioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
idempotencyNoPresent when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.25.0
    • addedOutput schema / properties / idempotency
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Present when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv1.24.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain semantics about proxy flags and the distinction between caller-evidenced export and artifact validation, but it does not say whether the binding persists state, whether it validates the provenance object against project state, or what failure means -- and the guard behavior lives only in the schema property text.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the action statement is front-loaded before the caveat. The second sentence is dense and slightly cryptic, but every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations plus full schema coverage handle safety and parameters. However, for a tool whose name and description both hinge on the undefined concept of 'binding', the description leaves an agent unable to predict whether the call mutates state or merely records/validates provenance.

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 every parameter (including the nested CEP guard fields) is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description loosely enumerates the provenance concepts (hashes, original availability, analysis provider, timeline revision), confirming what the required object carries, but adds no syntax, null-handling, or precondition detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific verb and object (bind source/proxy content hashes and availability to an analysis provider and timeline revision), but the framing is jargon-heavy and leaves unclear what a 'binding' actually is (a stored record? a validation?). It never distinguishes itself from nearby tools such as verify_delivery_file, verify_temporal_render_artifact, has_proxy, or manage_proxies.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, what preconditions must hold (approved hashes, reviewed timeline revision), or which sibling to use for adjacent tasks like delivery verification or proxy checks. The second sentence articulates an important semantic distinction (proxy flags do not prove delivery provider), but that is a caveat rather than selection guidance.

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