Skip to main content
Glama

Get Project Info

get_project_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the name, path, and current state of the open Premiere Pro project. Use it to confirm which project is active before running edits or automation.

Instructions

Get information about the currently open Premiere Pro project

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_project_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the "currently open" scope and omits the notable behavior disclosed in the schema: the expected_cep_target and expected_project_path fail-closed guards that make the tool refuse when the active project differs or is unsaved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than compression of useful information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the nested guard parameters are documented in the schema. What is missing is disambiguation from the numerous other project/state readers and any mention of the refusal semantics that affect how an agent should prepare a call.

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 two optional guard parameters are already documented in detail, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters, not even that they are optional or that omitting them preserves existing behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a verb and resource ("Get information about ... Premiere Pro project") with the important scope qualifier "currently open", but "information" is unspecified and the description does nothing to separate it from close siblings like get_full_project_overview, get_premiere_state, or get_project_panel_metadata. An agent cannot tell from the text what this returns that those do not.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. With roughly 250 sibling tools including several project-level readers, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap rather than a minor omission.

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