premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Export And Verify

export_and_verify

Render a guarded Premiere sequence to a new destination, then hash and probe the exact output against a delivery contract, with optional decoded QC.

Instructions

Preflight and directly render a guarded CEP sequence, then independently hash and probe the exact output against a delivery contract and optional decoded QC. Refuses existing destinations; never treats queue acceptance as completion.

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": {
      "output_path": "<output_path>",
      "preset_path": "<preset_path>",
      "contract": "<contract>"
    },
    "name": "export_and_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`range`	No	Reviewed existing sequence range; this workflow never changes marks.
`contract`	Yes	verify_delivery_conformance arguments except output_path; checked before export.
`decoded_qc`	No	Run existing decoded black/freeze/silence QC after conformance (default false).
`output_path`	Yes	New absolute delivery destination, with extension matching the preset.
`preset_path`	Yes	Explicit validated AME .epr preset.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional 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.
`timeout_minutes`	No	Native direct-export timeout, default 15 minutes.
`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.

First observedv1.30.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Going beyond the annotations, it discloses that the export is a direct render rather than a queue submission, that existing destinations are refused rather than overwritten, and that verification is independent (hash plus probe of the exact output). This aligns with destructiveHint=false, but it could still say what happens on partial failure or how long the direct render blocks.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two most consequential behavioral rules (destination refusal, queue acceptance is not completion). Dense but every clause carries information.

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 nine-parameter, nested-object, mutation tool with rich schema and an output schema, the description supplies the essential framing: what gets produced, that it is independently verified, and that destinations are never clobbered. Timeout and idempotency semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves a small gap.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in structured form. The description echoes the same concepts (delivery contract, optional decoded QC, guarded sequence) without adding format, ordering or edge-case meaning beyond the schema; 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?

Uses specific compound verbs (preflight, directly render, hash, probe) against a concrete resource (a CEP sequence and its exported file). The phrase 'directly render' and 'never treats queue acceptance as completion' separates it from the queued export/job siblings, and the two-phase export-then-verify scope is unmistakable.

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?

The description makes clear this is for guarded delivery against a contract with optional decoded QC, and 'refuses existing destinations' plus 'never treats queue acceptance as completion' implicitly route agents away from fire-and-forget exports. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative or stating the when-not condition explicitly.

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

Deploy Server