Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Can Execute

can_execute
Read-onlyIdempotent

Preflight a proposed tool call by validating its invocation, permissions, backend, and CEP target without executing it, returning refusal reasons and evidence age for safer dispatch.

Instructions

Validate an exact tool invocation, authority, live backend and bounded CEP targets without applying it. Returns named refusal/unknown reasons and evidence age; preflight is advisory and must be revalidated at dispatch.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYesExact proposed tool arguments; validated against that tool's schema.
tool_nameYesRegistered tool to preflight.
expected_cep_targetNoOptional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
expected_sequence_idNoExpected CEP active sequence ID, never a synthetic snapshot ID.
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words on what annotations cannot say: that results include named refusal/unknown reasons and evidence age, and that the verdict is time-sensitive and must be revalidated. It does not explain what an 'unknown' verdict means operationally or how stale evidence can get before it is untrustworthy.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return shape, then the advisory caveat. No boilerplate and no restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description covers the remaining gaps well: it is read-only, returns structured verdicts, and is advisory only. A small gap remains around what the agent should do on a refusal versus an unknown, and around authority prerequisites, but the essentials for correct invocation are there.

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 tool_name, arguments, expected_cep_target, expected_sequence_id and expected_project_path are all fully documented in structured fields. The description only gestures at them collectively ('authority, live backend and bounded CEP targets') and adds no syntax, precedence, or interaction guidance beyond the schema. 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?

Uses a specific verb (validate/preflight) on a specific resource (an exact tool invocation with arguments), and adds scope covering authority, live backend, and CEP targets. 'Without applying it' makes the non-mutating nature unambiguous. It doesn't name a sibling to contrast with, but no sibling in the list performs preflight validation, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Preflight is advisory and must be revalidated at dispatch' tells the agent both when this is appropriate (before acting) and its limitation (not a guarantee). It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, e.g. that local-only tools skip Premiere inspection or that CEP-only guards are refused on UXP, which only appears buried in the schema.

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