Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

Set Transcode On Ingest

set_transcode_on_ingest

Enable or disable transcoding on ingest for a Premiere Pro project; changes are reported as requested_unverified because no getter exists.

Instructions

Request enabling or disabling project transcoding on ingest. Premiere exposes no getter for independent verification, so dispatch is reported as requested_unverified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledYesTrue to enable transcode on ingest, false to disable

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  4. Addedv1.1.5
  5. Removedv1.1.5
  6. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is a dispatch/request rather than a confirmed write, and Premier exposes no getter, so the outcome is reported as requested_unverified. That disclosure materially affects how an agent should treat success. The annotations cover safety profile, and this goes further by flagging unverifiable state.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the primary action is front-loaded before the caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema, annotations, and complete parameter documentation, the description only needs to supply behavior the structured fields cannot. It does so by explaining the requested_unverified reporting semantics. Minor gap: no guidance on when this setting matters or how to confirm the resulting state afterward.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema description ('True to enable transcode on ingest, false to disable') fully documents it. The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Request enabling or disabling project transcoding on ingest.' An agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name or differentiate against any sibling, but no sibling overlaps with transcoding-on-ingest, so confusion risk is low.

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?

The description says what the tool does but never states when to reach for it versus alternatives (e.g., proxy workflows via manage_proxies, or import-time settings). No prerequisites or context conditions are given; usage is only implied by the project-level setting it names.

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