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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get Sequence In Out Points

get_sequence_in_out_points
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the current sequence's in and out points to verify edit boundaries and support precise timeline operations.

Instructions

Get the current sequence in and out points

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_sequence_in_out_points"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered there. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not explain what happens when expected_cep_target or expected_project_path mismatch, that these CEP-only guards are refused by UXP, or that the tool fails on an unsaved project, all of which are behavioral facts an agent needs.

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 short sentence with no waste and a front-loaded verb. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing is which sequence is targeted by default, what the identity guards do, and any failure mode — enough gaps that an agent could call it correctly but not predict its behavior.

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% and both parameters are optional with detailed inline documentation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving the baseline of 3 — adequate but contributing zero semantic value of its own.

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 (get the sequence's in and out points), which is clear enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as get_work_area, get_source_monitor_info, or set_sequence_in_out_points, nor does it say whether it reads the active sequence or the sequence identified by the expected_cep_target guard.

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 at all: no mention of prerequisites (an open, saved project and active sequence), no exclusions, and no pointer to the setter/clearer siblings. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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