Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Verify Delivery File

verify_delivery_file

Confirm an exported delivery is a non-empty regular file, calculate a SHA-256/SHA-512 checksum, and optionally compare expected size or checksum.

Instructions

Verify that an exported delivery is a non-empty regular file and calculate a SHA-256 or SHA-512 checksum; optionally compare expected size and checksum

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_pathYesFull path to the exported delivery file
expected_checksumNoOptional expected hexadecimal checksum to compare
checksum_algorithmNoChecksum algorithm (default: sha256)
minimum_size_bytesNoMinimum acceptable file size in bytes (default: 1)
expected_size_bytesNoOptional exact expected file size in bytes

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description usefully discloses the pass criteria (regular file, non-empty, size/checksum match), but it portrays a pure read/verify operation while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false — a checksum calculation on a fixed file is inherently read-only and idempotent. This mismatch misleads an agent reasoning about side effects and safe retries.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action (verify regular file) before the computed checksum and the optional comparisons. No filler.

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 description covers inputs, pass criteria, and behavior. The only gap is how failure is surfaced (raised error vs result flag), which the description leaves to the output schema.

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 all five parameters (output_path, expected_checksum, checksum_algorithm, minimum_size_bytes, expected_size_bytes) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the checksum-algorithm and optional-comparison semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Precise verb+resource: it states exactly what is verified (a non-empty regular file), what is computed (SHA-256/SHA-512 checksum), and what optional comparisons occur. An agent can distinguish this file-level integrity check from broader siblings like verify_delivery_conformance without opening the schema.

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 its context (post-export integrity checking) but never states when to use it versus siblings such as validate_project_for_export or verify_delivery_conformance, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the delivery must already exist). Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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