Premiere Pro MCP Server

Import Mogrt From Library

import_mogrt_from_library

Import a MOGRT from a named Adobe Creative Cloud Library into Premiere Pro at a chosen video track and start time, then verify rendered appearance in Premiere.

Instructions

Request importing a MOGRT from a named Adobe Creative Cloud Library. Library contents cannot be enumerated through CEP; host acceptance is committed_unverified, and rendered appearance must be checked in Premiere.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mogrt_name`	Yes	Name of the MOGRT in the library
`track_index`	No	Video track index (default: 0)
`library_name`	Yes	Name of the Adobe Creative Cloud Library that contains the MOGRT
`start_seconds`	No	Start time in seconds (default: 0)

Output Schema

TableJSON 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

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."

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.14.4Aug 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / library_name

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name of the Adobe Creative Cloud Library that contains the MOGRT",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "mogrt_name"
-]New value: +[
+  "library_name",
+  "mogrt_name"
+]

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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0Jul 27, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.1.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: library contents cannot be enumerated via CEP, host acceptance is 'committed_unverified' (fire-and-forget), and rendered appearance must be manually checked in Premiere. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or error behavior, but the unverified-commit disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded and the caveats packed into the second. It is efficient, though the second sentence is dense with internal jargon ('committed_unverified') that is not self-explanatory.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the key caveats (unverifiable host acceptance, manual visual check) for a mutation tool. It leaves out auth and failure handling, but is otherwise complete for calling the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the library_name concept and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 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 ('Request importing a MOGRT') plus the source scope ('from a named Adobe Creative Cloud Library'), which distinguishes it from the sibling import_mogrt and the publish_mogrt_to_library family. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'from a named Library' framing, but the description never explicitly says when to pick this over import_mogrt or names any alternative or exclusion condition. An agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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

Deploy Server