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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Has Proxy

has_proxy

Check whether a Premiere Pro project item has an attached proxy using its node ID, name, or sequence ID.

Instructions

Check if a project item has a proxy attached

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "has_proxy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYesNode ID or name of the project item, or the sequence ID of a sequence
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=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds nothing about side effects, permissions or host state. Given readOnlyHint=false, an agent would reasonably want to know why a pure check is not flagged read-only (host activation? CEP command generation?), and that is not addressed. The description also ignores the expected_cep_target/expected_project_path guard machinery that the schema implies every call carries.

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 zero filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficiently written; the shortfall is under-specification rather than bloat, which is penalized on other dimensions.

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 the boolean result need not be explained, and the schema fully documents parameters. What remains missing is the operational context: which item types can carry proxies, what a false result implies, and how this relates to the proxy-management siblings — meaningful gaps for a tool in a crowded proxy/inspection namespace.

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 the three parameters (item_id plus two nested guard objects) are each documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics of its own — it does not say that item_id accepts a node ID, a name, or a sequence ID, nor that the guard fields are optional safety checks.

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 predicate ("check if") over a specific resource ("project item" and whether it "has a proxy attached"), which is unambiguous on its own. It also implicitly separates this read-style query from siblings such as detach_proxy and manage_proxies without naming them.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the proxy siblings (detach_proxy, manage_proxies) or versus the general item-inspection tools. No preconditions are stated — e.g. whether the item must be a file-based asset for proxies to apply, or whether a false result can mean "unsupported."

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