Premiere Pro MCP Server

Get Export Job Status

get_export_job_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether an export job is queued, encoding, completed, or failed, verifying output file stability and duration before reporting verified completion.

Instructions

Read the status of an export job started by export_sequence_job_start: queued, encoding (with AME-reported progress when events arrive), finalizing, completed, failed, cancelled, or unknown. Evidence is reported separately: Adobe Media Encoder job events recorded inside Premiere's ExtendScript engine, and Node-side observation of the output file (exists, non-empty, size and modification time unchanged across stability_window_ms and since the previous poll). completed is verified only when AME reported completion, the file is stable and non-empty, and ffprobe confirms its duration within one frame; without an AME completion event a stable file is reported as completed but unverified. Jobs started by an earlier server process report unknown (server_restarted). Read-only: it never starts, cancels, or retries a render.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`job_id`	Yes	jobId returned by export_sequence_job_start
`expected_cep_target`	No	Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
`stability_window_ms`	No	How long to wait between the two output-file size checks in this call (default 2000 ms)
`expected_project_path`	No	Optional 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

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
`tool`	Yes	The registered MCP tool name.
`error`	No	Failure detail when ok is false.
`receipt`	No	Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
`idempotency`	No	Present 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.

Addedv1.25.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the status lifecycle, the evidence sources (AME events and file observations), the conditions for verified vs. unverified completion, and the 'unknown' state when the server restarted. It also reinforces the read-only nature by stating it never starts, cancels, or retries a render.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then unpacks status semantics and verification details. It is dense but every sentence contributes useful behavioral context, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullets for statuses or evidence sources).

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 the output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers all status values, the meaning of 'completed' verification, the 'unknown' fallback, and the read-only guarantee, leaving no essential behavioral question unanswered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the role of stability_window_ms in the evidence-gathering process and implicitly explains job_id via the start-tool reference, but adds no new meaning for expected_cep_target or expected_project_path. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the status of an export job started by export_sequence_job_start.' It enumerates the possible statuses (queued, encoding, finalizing, completed, failed, cancelled, unknown) and explicitly ties the tool to jobs created by a named sibling, making it easy to distinguish from generic render-queue tools.

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 description gives clear context: use this to check the status of a job started by export_sequence_job_start. It does not explicitly name alternatives (such as get_render_queue_status or wait_workflow_job) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server