Premiere Pro MCP Server

Verify Delivery Conformance

verify_delivery_conformance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate an exported video file against specified delivery requirements using ffprobe and optional EBU R128 loudness analysis, returning pass, fail, or not_evaluated per check.

Instructions

Verify a local exported file against an explicit delivery contract using ffprobe and optional EBU R128 analysis. Returns pass, fail, or not_evaluated per check; it does not prove Premiere render lineage or visual approval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`width`	No	Expected video width in pixels
`height`	No	Expected video height in pixels
`frame_rate`	No	Expected frames per second; rational ffprobe rates are compared numerically
`audio_codec`	No	Expected audio codec name, such as aac or pcm_s24le
`output_path`	Yes	Existing local delivery file
`target_lufs`	No	Optional integrated loudness target from -100 through 0 LUFS
`video_codec`	No	Expected video codec name, such as h264 or prores
`audio_channels`	No	Expected audio channel count
`duration_seconds`	No	Expected duration in seconds
`audio_sample_rate_hz`	No	Expected audio sample rate
`frame_rate_tolerance`	No	Allowed absolute frame-rate difference (default: 0.001)
`loudness_tolerance_lu`	No	Allowed absolute loudness difference (default: 1 LU)
`maximum_true_peak_dbfs`	No	Optional maximum true peak from -100 through 0 dBFS
`allowed_container_names`	No	Allowed ffprobe demuxer-family aliases, such as mov or mp4. This cannot distinguish exact subtypes when ffprobe reports a shared alias family.
`duration_tolerance_seconds`	No	Allowed absolute duration difference (default: 0.05)
`maximum_video_bitrate_kbps`	No	Optional maximum selected-video-stream bitrate in kilobits per second
`minimum_video_bitrate_kbps`	No	Optional minimum selected-video-stream bitrate in kilobits per second

Output Schema

TableJSON 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

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."

Addedv1.14.9Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the three-valued result model (pass/fail/not_evaluated per check) and explicitly negates what it cannot prove, which prevents over-trusting a pass verdict.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the contract framing, then the result model and the scope caveat. No filler, and the most decision-relevant caveat comes last where it is still easy to retain.

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?

For a 17-parameter read-only verification tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: what is analyzed, what the possible verdicts are, and where the guarantees stop. The only genuine omission is routing guidance against the near-identical verify_delivery_file sibling.

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 every one of the 17 parameters is already documented in the schema with types, defaults, and units. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'explicit delivery contract', so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource — verifying a local exported file against a delivery contract — and names the underlying tooling (ffprobe, EBU R128), so the agent knows what is being checked. It does not distinguish itself from the very close sibling verify_delivery_file, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or routing to alternatives such as verify_delivery_file or validate_project_for_export. However, the scope exclusions ('does not prove Premiere render lineage or visual approval') function as implicit when-not guidance, which lifts it above pure silence.

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

Deploy Server