Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create Bars And Tone

create_bars_and_tone

Add a SMPTE bars and tone clip to your Premiere Pro project for broadcast calibration and leader testing. Specify resolution, frame rate, and audio sample rate.

Instructions

Create a Bars and Tone synthetic media item in the project (useful for leader/calibration)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName for the bars and tone item (default: 'Bars and Tone')
widthNoFrame width in pixels (default: 1920)
heightNoFrame height in pixels (default: 1080)
timebaseNoTimebase as ticks-per-second string (default uses sequence timebase)
audio_sample_rateNoAudio sample rate in Hz (default: 48000)
pixel_aspect_numeratorNoPixel aspect ratio numerator (default: 1)
pixel_aspect_denominatorNoPixel aspect ratio denominator (default: 1)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
dataNoTool-specific result data when ok is true.
toolYesThe registered MCP tool name.
errorNoFailure detail when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.14.4
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / audio_sample_rate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Audio sample rate in Hz (default: 48000)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / pixel_aspect_denominator
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pixel aspect ratio denominator (default: 1)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / pixel_aspect_numerator
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pixel aspect ratio numerator (default: 1)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$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"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. Addedv1.1.5
  4. Removedv1.1.5
  5. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotent=false), and the description aligns with these by describing a creation operation. The description adds that the result is a synthetic, generated item that lands in the project, which is useful. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., an open project), where the item is inserted (which bin), or that repeated calls keep producing new items. With annotations covering the safety profile, a mid score is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the verb and object appear immediately, and the parenthetical earns its place by contributing the use case (leader/calibration). There is zero filler, repetition of the title, or extraneous detail. This is the right size for a simple creation tool.

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?

Given 0 required parameters, a fully described schema, an output schema, and annotations pinning down the safety profile, the description covers everything essential: what is created, where it appears, and why an agent would use it. Minor gap: no explicit statement that an open project is required or mention of the default insertion bin, though 'in the project' implies the active project context.

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 (name, width, height, timebase, audio_sample_rate, pixel_aspect_*) already has its own documented meaning and default. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, which the rubric's high-coverage baseline of 3 explicitly permits. There is no gap for the description to compensate for.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with the specific verb 'Create' and names a precise resource: 'a Bars and Tone synthetic media item in the project.' The 'synthetic media item' qualifier is what separates this from the many create_* siblings (create_sequence, create_bin, create_subclip, create_caption_track) that create project structures, not generated test patterns. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

The parenthetical '(useful for leader/calibration)' states the intended use case explicitly. There is no competing sibling tool that generates synthetic media items, so the absence of named alternatives is tolerable. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use language, but for a unique tool the clear use-case context is sufficient.

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