Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Advanced Feature Support

get_advanced_feature_support
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check Premiere collaboration and AI feature support by evaluating backend, version, network, and entitlements, then report public-API limits and user-assisted boundaries.

Instructions

Report public-API support, prerequisites, entitlements, and user-assisted boundaries for Premiere collaboration and AI features

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backendNoBackend being evaluated (default: cep, the current production MCP transport)
frameio_entitledNoWhether the operator has confirmed Frame.io account/project access
premiere_versionNoOptional Premiere version such as 26.3.0 for version-specific eligibility
network_availableNoWhether required Adobe/cloud services are reachable
generative_ai_entitledNoWhether the operator has confirmed Adobe generative AI entitlement

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. Addedv1.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool assesses (entitlements, prerequisites, user-assisted boundaries), but says nothing about required inputs, defaults, or how results should be interpreted beyond what the schema and output schema provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the list of reported dimensions is dense but each item is meaningful. Slightly compressed for the breadth it covers, but nothing is wasted.

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 described, and the schema fully documents inputs. What is missing is the disambiguation from the similar support-reporting sibling, which matters for a tool whose whole job is comparing feature eligibility across tools.

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%, including a documented enum and defaults for the backend parameter, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no detail about any of the five inputs, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates a concrete resource set: public-API support, prerequisites, entitlements, and user-assisted boundaries for Premiere collaboration and AI features. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling get_av_feature_support, leaving the agent to guess which support-reporting tool applies.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling get_av_feature_support or get_capabilities. Usage is only implied by the subject matter, so an agent has no rule for choosing this tool over its close neighbors.

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