Premiere Pro MCP Server

Verify Caption Render Evidence

verify_caption_render_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates caller-measured caption and title bounds, missing glyphs, line breaks, and bidirectional text against a rendered-artifact SHA256 and target safe zone before acceptance.

Instructions

Check caller-measured caption/title bounds, missing glyphs, line-break and bidirectional-text review against a rendered-artifact SHA256 and target safe zone. Pixel measurement and manual review remain explicit; this tool does not perform OCR or certify unsampled frames.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`evidence`	Yes	Strict rendered evidence: artifact_sha256, frame_width/height, safe_margin, cues with text, measured bounds, missing_glyphs, line_breaks_verified, bidi_verified, sampled_ticks and evidence_method.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the evidence is caller-measured, that pixel measurement and manual review remain explicit, and that the tool does not perform OCR or certify unsampled frames.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core verification scope, and uses the second sentence to state limitations. It contains 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?

The tool is complex, with nested inputs, but annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema carry much of the burden. The description supplies the essential conceptual scope and key limitations, though it does not explain the expected evidence-production workflow or when this verification should be run relative to sibling 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%, so the nested evidence fields and expected CEP/project guards are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the conceptual inputs (rendered-artifact SHA256, target safe zone, caption bounds, glyphs, line-break and bidi review) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 verification action over clearly named evidence: caption/title bounds, missing glyphs, line breaks, bidi review, rendered-artifact SHA256, and target safe zone. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as check_caption_safe_zone or verify_temporal_render_artifact.

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 by saying it checks caller-measured render evidence and that pixel measurement/manual review remain explicit. It also gives a useful exclusion: no OCR and no certification of unsampled frames. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or describe the workflow that should produce the evidence.

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

Deploy Server