Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

Has Proxy

has_proxy

Check if a Premiere Pro project item has a proxy attached by passing its node ID or name.

Instructions

Check if a project item has a proxy attached

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. Addedv1.1.5
  5. Removedv1.1.5
  6. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description frames this as a boolean query ('Check if...'), which naturally implies a read-only, repeatable operation, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. That is a direct mismatch between the described semantics and the declared behavior, and the description adds nothing about permissions or side effects to resolve it.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool whose safety profile is ambiguous.

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 explained, and the single-parameter surface is simple. However, for a tool whose annotations suggest non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, the description should have clarified whether the check has side effects or state requirements.

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% and the single parameter (item_id) is fully documented in the schema as a node ID or name, so the description correctly carries no additional parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 ('Check if') and resource ('a project item has a proxy attached'), which is clearly distinct from the mutating siblings detach_proxy and manage_proxies. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, even though detach_proxy and manage_proxies sit in the same proxy family. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read/query counterpart to those mutation tools.

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