Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
premiere-pro-mcp

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Analyze Video Interlacing

analyze_video_interlacing

Classifies decoded video frames as progressive, top-field-first, bottom-field-first, mixed, or undetermined with FFmpeg idet for read-only delivery preflight.

Instructions

Classify decoded video frames as progressive, top-field-first, bottom-field-first, mixed, or undetermined using FFmpeg idet. Read-only delivery preflight.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "media_path": "<media_path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_video_interlacing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
use_cacheNoOpt in to bounded process-memory caching keyed by source path/identity, media content SHA-256, exact options, revision, and analysis version. Files over 256 MiB analyze uncached. Default false.
media_pathYesExisting local video file
sample_secondsNoDecode sample duration from 1 through 300 seconds (default: 30)
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-chosen key (1-128 chars of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -) for this intended edit. Pass a fresh key per edit and reuse it only when retrying that same edit, for example after a client-side timeout. A repeat with the same tool, key and arguments is not run again: while the first call is running it fails with IDEMPOTENCY_IN_PROGRESS (poll get_last_operations); after it finished it returns the original outcome marked replayed. A definite failure with nothing applied (receipt outcome not_applied) may be retried with the same key. Reusing a key with different arguments fails with IDEMPOTENCY_KEY_REUSED. Scoped to this MCP session (the stdio server process, or the HTTP server process when Streamable HTTP is stateless per request) and held in memory only (200 keys, 1 hour); it does not survive a restart or reconnect. Read-only invocations are never deduplicated.
analysis_revisionNoOptional project/timeline revision to isolate otherwise-identical analysis inputs.
expected_cep_targetNoOptional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
expected_project_pathNoOptional 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

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.
receiptNoVersioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
idempotencyNoPresent 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.

  1. First observedv1.30.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, while the description asserts 'Read-only delivery preflight' — a direct conflict about whether this call mutates state. Beyond that, the only behavioral detail given is the FFmpeg idet engine; nothing is said about cost, decoding time for long files, or why a pure analysis tool is marked non-read-only.

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: the first states method and taxonomy, the second states the operating context. Zero redundancy and front-loaded with the classification result, which is what an agent needs first.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter tool with nested CEP guards and an output schema, coverage of the analysis contract is thin: the output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the read-only claim conflicting with annotations and the absence of usage routing leave an agent unsure when and how to call it safely.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about media_path, sample_seconds, or the analysis_revision/expected_cep_target guards, which is acceptable given the rich schema — but the description also omits any hint that this is a local-file operation, leaving all parameter meaning to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (classify) and resource (decoded video frames), enumerates the exact output classes (progressive, top-field-first, bottom-field-first, mixed, undetermined) and the underlying engine (FFmpeg idet), and frames its scope as delivery preflight, which distinguishes it from analyze_video_qc and read_video_scopes.

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?

Calling it a 'read-only delivery preflight' implies the pre-delivery QC context, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no named alternative (e.g. analyze_video_qc) to route between. The agent must infer from purpose alone whether interlacing analysis belongs in its current step.

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