Premiere Pro MCP Server

Verify Timeline Postconditions

verify_timeline_postconditions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares expected and actual canonical timeline snapshots to report structural discrepancies in source continuity, linked identities, preserved neighbors, and unexpected pieces before editing.

Instructions

Compare exact canonical snapshots for source continuity, linked identities, preserved neighbors and unexpected pieces. Reports bounded structural discrepancies. Does not certify audible A/V synchronization or rendering.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`actual`	Yes	Version 1 canonical snapshot from inspect_timeline_snapshot or an equivalent verified adapter; exact tick strings, host identities, completeness, tracks/clips and SHA256 revision are validated before use.
`expected`	Yes	Version 1 canonical snapshot from inspect_timeline_snapshot or an equivalent verified adapter; exact tick strings, host identities, completeness, tracks/clips and SHA256 revision are validated before use.
`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 declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: it enumerates what dimensions are compared and characterizes output as 'bounded structural discrepancies', implying it reports rather than throws on mismatch, along with a scope disclaimer about what it will not certify.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is compared, what is returned, and what is out of scope. The exclusion is placed last where limits belong, and there is no boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present and fully documented parameters, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly concentrates on scope. It is only incomplete in not tying itself to inspect_timeline_snapshot (the snapshot producer) or diff_sequence_snapshots, which for a nested, guard-heavy verification tool is a meaningful missing link.

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 schema already explains expected/actual provenance, the CEP identity guard, and expected_project_path. The description only reinforces that comparison uses 'exact' canonical snapshots and hints at compared dimensions; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: comparing exact canonical snapshots for four enumerated properties (source continuity, linked identities, preserved neighbors, unexpected pieces), plus an explicit negative scope ('Does not certify audible A/V synchronization or rendering'). It never names the sibling it most overlaps with, diff_sequence_snapshots, nor the producing tool inspect_timeline_snapshot, so an agent cannot fully separate it from siblings on the description alone.

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 exclusion sentence gives a usable when-not boundary (no A/V sync or rendering certification), which is more than most tools offer. But there is no positive trigger ('use after X edit, before Y export') and no routing to diff_sequence_snapshots or inspect_timeline_snapshot, so the when-to-use signal is only implied.

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

Deploy Server