Skip to main content
Glama

Export Sequence Review Frames

export_sequence_review_frames

Export up to 24 evenly spaced, file-verified frames from a sequence range in one call to visually review a cut. Use it to check framing and composition before committing to a full video export.

Instructions

Export 2-24 evenly spaced, file-verified frames from an active-sequence range in one bridge round trip for visual review. If Media Encoder still capture cannot restore sequence In/Out, remaining frames are not attempted and the call fails. Still capture does not verify temporal animation, playback, audio, or editorial quality; PNG frames keep the sequence's transparency (straight alpha), so composite them over black before comparing with a video export.

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_dir": "<output_dir>"
    },
    "name": "export_sequence_review_frames"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_dirYesExisting directory where review_001.png through review_NNN.png will be written
end_secondsNoOptional positive range end in seconds (default: sequence end)
frame_countNoNumber of evenly spaced frames to export (default: 6; minimum: 2; maximum: 24)
start_secondsNoOptional non-negative range start in seconds (default: sequence start)
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.
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries real weight and delivers: failure semantics when Media Encoder still capture cannot restore sequence In/Out, the guarantee of one bridge round trip, and PNG straight-alpha behavior. It does not say whether the call alters sequence In/Out or leaves the project state untouched, which matters for a non-destructive-looking write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences: capability first, failure mode second, caveats third. Dense but every clause carries information (round-trip count, failure condition, alpha handling); 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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description covers the gaps an agent would otherwise miss: verification level, failure mode, and compositing caveat for transparency. Remaining gap is interaction with sequence In/Out state and whether project data is modified, which is only obliquely implied by destructiveHint=false.

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 baseline is 3; the description reinforces the 2-24 frame bound and the evenly-spaced sampling semantics but adds nothing about start_seconds/end_seconds behavior or how output_dir files are named beyond the schema. The complex nested expected_cep_target guard is left entirely to the schema.

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 (export), resource (frames from an active-sequence range), quantity bounds (2-24), the verification property (file-verified) and the purpose (visual review). The 'active-sequence range' scoping implicitly separates it from clip- and marker-scoped siblings, but it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('for visual review') and an explicit exclusion set: still capture does not verify temporal animation, playback, audio, or editorial quality, so it should not be used as a video-export substitute. It lacks a positive 'use X instead when...' routing statement to the sibling frame-export or full-export tools.

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