Premiere Pro MCP Server

Verify Mogrt Artifact

verify_mogrt_artifact

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a .mogrt file inside an approved workspace exists locally and has a ZIP header, validating only file integrity rather than Premiere Pro compatibility or playback.

Instructions

Verify that a workspace-contained .mogrt artifact exists locally and has a ZIP header. This does not prove controls, import compatibility, playback, or visual correctness.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mogrt_path`	Yes	Absolute .mogrt artifact path inside approved_workspace_path.
`approved_workspace_path`	Yes	Absolute operator-approved workspace root containing mogrt_path.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result data when ok is true.
`tool`	Yes	The registered MCP tool name.
`error`	No	Failure detail when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.14.9Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description clarifies that the check is local, format-only, and limited to ZIP-header presence. It candidly discloses what the tool does not verify, which is useful behavioral context for an agent.

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 compact sentences, with the core verification scope in the first sentence and limitations in the second. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity read-only check with a complete schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral scope and non-goals. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both absolute path parameters and their relationship. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific action (verify) applied to a concrete resource (.mogrt artifact) with exact criteria: exists locally and has ZIP header. It also scopes to workspace-contained artifacts, making it distinct from the many preview/validate/import mogrt siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit exclusions by saying it does not prove controls, import compatibility, playback, or visual correctness, which prevents using it as a validation/preview tool. It does not name the specific sibling tools to use for those checks, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server