Premiere Pro MCP Server

Preview Otio Snapshot Export

preview_otio_snapshot_export

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview an offline OTIO export by serializing a bounded snapshot, parsing it back, and comparing supported structure; returns text for review without writing files.

Instructions

Serialize the declared bounded linear offline snapshot subset to OTIO, then parse it back and compare exact supported structure. Refuses unsupported nests/effect parameters/non-frame timing. Returns text for review; does not write files or establish Premiere/destination compatibility.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`snapshot`	Yes	premiere-mcp.interchange.snapshot.v1 returned by inspect_otio_interchange; offline IDs only. Maximum 2,000 entries, 32 levels and 20,000 JSON nodes.
`expected_cep_target`	No	Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
`expected_project_path`	No	Optional absolute saved-project path. Every generated CEP command refuses before its body when the active project differs or is unsaved. UXP commands refuse this CEP-only guard; local-only tools do not inspect Premiere. Omit to keep existing behavior.

Output 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.
`receipt`	No	Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
`idempotency`	No	Present when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.25.0Oct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / idempotency

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Present when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.24.0Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already declaring it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it serializes and parses back for structural comparison, refuses unsupported nests/effect parameters/non-frame timing, returns text for review, and does not write files or check Premiere/destination compatibility.

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 three tightly packed sentences: action first, constraints second, output and limitations third. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It does not explicitly connect the snapshot parameter to inspect_otio_interchange in the descriptive text, but the schema carries that relationship.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents the snapshot and optional guard parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 precise verb-and-resource framing: it serializes a bounded offline snapshot subset to OTIO, parses it back, and compares the structure. It distinguishes itself from writing export tools by stating it returns text for review and does not write files, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 this tool is for review-only validation (text output, no file writing) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as inspect_otio_interchange or a real export tool. The usage context is inferable rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server