Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

Get Project Item Info

get_project_item_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve detailed media file information from a Premiere Pro project item, including path, resolution, duration, frame rate, codec, metadata, offline status, in/out points, and proxy status.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a project item (media file in the project panel): media path, resolution, duration, frame rate, codec info, metadata, color label, offline status, in/out points, and proxy status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYesNode ID or name of the project item

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds value by naming the concrete data surface (codec, offline status, proxy status, in/out points), which tells the agent what it will learn, but it does not disclose failure modes such as behavior on an invalid or offline item.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then enumerates the payload. The field list is long but each item is informative, so nothing meaningfully 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?

For a one-parameter read-only getter with full annotation coverage and an output schema that documents return values, the description supplies what remains: the conceptual scope ('project panel media file') and the breadth of fields. Only sibling disambiguation is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Node ID or name of the project item'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (project item), clarifying parenthetically that this is a media file in the project panel, and enumerates the returned fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like get_item_info, get_clip_properties, or inspect_project_item_av_metadata.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the many overlapping readers in the sibling list (get_item_info, inspect_project_item_av_metadata, get_metadata, get_qe_clip_info). The agent must infer the choice from names alone, which is exactly the situation the description should resolve.

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