Premiere Pro MCP Server

Inspect Project Item Av Metadata

inspect_project_item_av_metadata

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a project item's color space, LUT IDs, overrides, and audio channel shape to resolve metadata issues before editing.

Instructions

Inspect a project item's documented effective/original color space, LUT IDs, available color-space overrides, and audio channel shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	Project item node ID or exact name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result data when ok is true.
`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 changedv1.14.4Aug 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

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

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"
+}

Addedv1.4.0Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavor, so the description only needs to add contextual value. It adds the specific metadata domains returned and the 'documented' qualifier, which hints that the tool reads stored metadata rather than deriving values. No behavioral contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence that front-loads the action and then tersely lists exactly what will be inspected. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the title or annotations.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with a strong annotation profile and an output schema, this description is sufficient. It tells the agent what data is exposed, and the output schema can carry the return structure. No critical usage or safety information 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?

The single parameter item_id is fully documented in the schema ('Project item node ID or exact name'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it does not need to compensate; the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('project item'), and enumerates concrete metadata facets: effective/original color space, LUT IDs, color-space overrides, and audio channel shape. This makes it distinguishable from generic siblings like get_item_info or inspect_sequence_av_settings without needing to open their schemas.

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?

The narrow scope implies when to use it: when a caller needs these specific AV metadata facets for a project item. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling names and context.

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

Deploy Server