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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Inspect Interchange Artifact

inspect_interchange_artifact
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads a caller-selected edit interchange file, hashes its bytes, and identifies its actual OTIO, FCP7 XML, FCPXML, or EDL structure; AAF/OMF remain opaque-byte evidence.

Instructions

Read caller-selected artifact bytes, hash them and identify actual OTIO/FCP7 xmeml/FCPXML/EDL structure. AAF/OMF are bounded opaque-byte evidence only. File existence, parsed structure, round-trip and licensed-host/destination evidence remain distinct.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_interchange_artifact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute caller-selected local file path. Referenced media is never opened automatically.
formatNoRequested format; XML root bytes distinguish FCP7 xmeml from FCPXML. AAF/OMF semantic parsing is unavailable.
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that bytes are hashed, that AAF/OMF yield only opaque-byte evidence, and that existence, parsed structure, round-trip and licensed-host evidence are kept as distinct categories, which matters for how the caller interprets the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no wasted framing. The final clause about 'file existence, parsed structure, round-trip and licensed-host/destination evidence remain distinct' is dense and somewhat compressed, but it is carrying a real epistemic distinction rather than filler.

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 shape need not be explained, and the 100%-covered input schema carries parameter detail. However, for a read-only inspection tool the description never clarifies why the schema carries an idempotency_key and a CEP-only expected_cep_target/expected_project_path guard, leaving the caller to work out that those are inert here.

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 path, format enum, idempotency_key and CEP guard parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the format-capability nuance (XML root bytes distinguish xmeml from FCPXML; AAF/OMF unparsed), which is consistent with but largely redundant to the schema's own wording. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses specific verbs (read, hash, identify) against a concrete resource (an interchange artifact's bytes and structure) and enumerates the formats it recognizes (OTIO, FCP7 xmeml, FCPXML, EDL). It does not name or distinguish itself from the format-specific siblings like inspect_otio_interchange or inspect_fcpxml_interchange, so a caller must infer that this is the general/multi-format entry point.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the sentence about AAF/OMF being 'bounded opaque-byte evidence only' tells the caller this tool will not semantically parse those formats, which is a useful constraint. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of when a format-specific sibling should be preferred.

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