Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get Mogrt Component

get_mogrt_component
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read MOGRT clip parameters from the timeline and audit text fields against expected values, flagging verified, mismatch, or missing_property. Uses stored properties, not the Essential Graphics panel.

Instructions

Get MOGRT (Motion Graphics Template) component parameters from a clip. Each parameter includes textValue (visible text extracted from textEditValue when present). Pass expected_values to audit text controls such as Headline; the result flags verified, mismatch, or missing_property per field. Reads the stored property, not the Essential Graphics panel display, which Premiere can show stale (host UI behavior this tool cannot refresh).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the MOGRT clip on the timeline
expected_valuesNoOptional read-only audit map of MOGRT text parameter display names to the text each should contain (for example { "Headline": "Chapter 3" }). Result audit.status is verified, mismatch, or missing_property.

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_values
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": "Optional read-only audit map of MOGRT text parameter display names to the text each should contain (for example { \"Headline\": \"Chapter 3\" }). Result audit.status is verified, mismatch, or missing_property.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. 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"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  5. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real value beyond them: it documents the textValue extraction from textEditValue, the per-field audit outcome vocabulary (verified/mismatch/missing_property), and the important caveat that the EGP display can be stale and cannot be refreshed by this tool. That is substantive behavioral context, not a restatement of annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with the audit behavior and the staleness caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; the nested parenthetical about textEditValue is slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the key input semantics plus the staleness limitation. For a two-parameter read tool it is essentially complete, with only the when-to-use routing against sibling inspection tools left unaddressed.

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 both node_id and expected_values are already fully documented in the schema, including the audit status vocabulary. The description reinforces the expected_values audit purpose but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get MOGRT component parameters from a clip') and scopes it to MOGRT component properties, which cleanly separates it from generic siblings like get_clip_properties or get_effect_properties. It also clarifies it reads the stored property rather than the Essential Graphics panel display.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It tells the agent to pass expected_values when auditing text controls such as Headline, which implies a usage context, but it never states when to prefer this tool over adjacent ones (get_effect_properties, inspect_dom_object, get_clip_properties) or any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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