Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Open Project

open_project

Opens an existing Premiere Pro project for editing by specifying the full path to the .prproj file.

Instructions

Open a Premiere Pro project file

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesFull file path to the .prproj file

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
dataNoTool-specific result data when ok is true.
toolYesThe registered MCP tool name.
errorNoFailure detail when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. Addedv1.4.0
  3. Removedv1.1.5
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, indicating this mutates application state, but the description adds no context about the consequences: opening a project likely replaces the currently open one and may discard unsaved changes, and no error behavior for missing or invalid files is disclosed. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description fails to convey the operation's real-world impact.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriate for a simple one-parameter tool. The brevity is efficient, though it trades away behavioral context that is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

For a low-complexity tool, invocation is fully specified: one required parameter with complete schema coverage, annotations present, and an output schema available so return values need no explanation. The notable gap is the absence of side-effect disclosure (replacing the current project) for a non-readonly, non-idempotent operation, which makes the package adequate but not complete.

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% — the single required parameter (path) is already documented as 'Full file path to the .prproj file'. The description merely reinforces that the resource is a project file without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('Premiere Pro project file'), making the core action unambiguous. It differentiates from project-lifecycle siblings like create_project, close_project, and save_project via the distinct verb, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from import-style tools (import_media, import_fcp_xml) that are conceptually adjacent.

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 guidance is provided on when to open versus create, import, or restore a project. With roughly 200 siblings including create_project, close_project, import_fcp_xml, and get_all_project_paths, the agent gets no help routing between adjacent tools, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as whether an existing project must be closed first.

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