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 exact server-issued editorial plan against saved project revisions and get an opaque confirmation token. Read-only; does not apply the plan.

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; 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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.6
    • 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. 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"
-}
  3. 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"
+}
  4. Addedv1.13.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the plan must be an exact server-issued artifact, validation is against saved project-context revisions, and the result is an opaque confirmation token.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core action and then state the read-only limitation. There is no filler, and the constraint that matters most, 'cannot apply the plan,' appears early.

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?

For a one-parameter preview/validation tool with a complete input schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it correctly and understand that it cannot apply changes. The main remaining gap is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling preview/apply tools.

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 sole parameter is documented in the schema as the unchanged plan returned by create_editorial_plan from this running server instance. The description adds 'exact server-issued' emphasis but largely reinforces rather than extends the schema semantics.

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 names a specific verb, 'Revalidate,' and a specific resource, 'exact server-issued editorial plan,' and states the output artifact, an 'opaque confirmation token.' It also distinguishes itself from apply/create siblings by emphasizing 'cannot apply the plan' and by requiring a plan already issued by create_editorial_plan.

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 description implies usage as a validation/preview step by saying it revalidates a server-issued plan and cannot apply it, but it never states when this tool should be used instead of preview_edit_plan, apply_edit_plan, or create_editorial_plan. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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