Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Preview Editorial Plan

preview_editorial_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Revalidate an editorial plan against saved project revisions to obtain a confirmation token, verifying the plan is current without applying changes.

Instructions

Revalidate an exact server-issued editorial plan against the saved project-context revisions and return an opaque confirmation token. This tool is read-only and cannot apply the plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesUnchanged plan returned by create_editorial_plan from this running server instance.

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. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.14.9
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / plan / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -{}
    • removedInput schema / properties / plan / propertyNames
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
  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. Addedv1.13.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: revalidation checks an exact server-issued plan against saved revisions, returns an opaque token, and explicitly cannot apply changes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two efficient sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the read-only disclaimer is placed second for emphasis. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the single parameter, strong annotations, and existing output schema, the description is largely complete for a read-only validation tool. It clearly explains the input requirement and the non-applying nature. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly routing the user to apply_edit_plan for actual changes or mentioning the purpose of the confirmation token, but this is not a major gap.

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 schema already fully documents the single `plan` parameter as an unchanged plan returned by create_editorial_plan from this running server instance. The description restates this requirement in different words ('exact server-issued editorial plan') but provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action: revalidating an exact server-issued editorial plan and returning a confirmation token. It clearly distinguishes this from applying the plan by explicitly saying it is read-only and cannot apply the plan. This is a clear, non-tautological definition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this to revalidate a plan against saved project-context revisions, and it explicitly says this tool cannot apply the plan. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like apply_edit_plan or preview_edit_plan, so it falls just short of the strongest guidance.

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