Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Validate Export Preset

validate_export_preset

Check if an Adobe Media Encoder .epr preset exists and query the active Premiere sequence for its output extension to ensure correct export settings.

Instructions

Validate that an Adobe Media Encoder .epr preset exists and ask the active Premiere sequence which output extension it produces

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
preset_pathYesFull path to an Adobe Media Encoder export preset (.epr)

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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, yet the description frames the tool as an innocuous existence check plus a question asked of the sequence, giving no account of the state change implied by the annotations (e.g., loading a preset onto the sequence to derive its extension). It also says nothing about failure behavior when the preset is missing or when no sequence is active.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that covers both behaviors with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the second clause (asking the sequence) reads a bit awkwardly and could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the one parameter is fully documented. The description covers both halves of the operation; the only material omission is any note about the non-read-only side effect and error conditions.

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% for the single required preset_path parameter, and the schema already documents it as a full path to an .epr file. The description adds no format, path-resolution, or relative-vs-absolute detail beyond that, 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 names specific verbs (validate existence, query output extension) and specific resources (an Adobe Media Encoder .epr preset, the active Premiere sequence), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like get_encoder_presets or validate_project_for_export, though it never explicitly names an alternative to differentiate itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only implicit signal is that this is a pre-export check, but the description never states prerequisites (e.g., an active sequence must exist) or how it relates to sibling validators such as validate_project_for_export or verify_delivery_conformance.

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