Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Refresh Media

refresh_media

Reload a Premiere Pro project item to pick up source-file changes, while checking interpreted frame rate and restoring the previous value if an implausible rate appears.

Instructions

Refresh a project item to pick up changes to the source file. The interpreted frame rate is read before and after; if the refresh leaves an implausible rate (seen on stills, e.g. 29.97 becoming 2.75e-8), the previous rate is restored and read back. Reports frameRateBefore, frameRateAfter and repaired.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYesNode ID or name of the item to refresh

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. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • 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. 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. Addedv1.4.0
  4. Removedv1.1.5
  5. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that the interpreted frame rate is sampled before and after, that an implausible result (with a concrete example, 29.97 -> 2.75e-8) triggers restoration of the previous rate, and what is reported back. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, then the behavioral detail, then the return fields. Three sentences with no filler, though the technical frame-rate explanation is dense and only relevant to a subset of calls.

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 one-parameter mutation whose annotations cover safety and whose output schema covers the return shape, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the trigger condition, the repair logic, and the observed edge case. Nothing material 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents item_id fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Refresh a project item') and immediately scopes it ('to pick up changes to the source file'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from closely related siblings like relink_media or check_offline_media, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'pick up changes to the source file', which tells the agent the situation that warrants a refresh. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. relink_media for moving media), so it is adequate but incomplete.

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