premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Inspect Interchange Loss Report

inspect_interchange_loss_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds per-feature inspected, approximated, dropped, and unknown loss evidence for OTIO, FCP7 XML, FCPXML, EDL, AAF, or OMF, optionally identifying an artifact’s actual root.

Instructions

Build per-feature inspected/approximated/dropped/unknown loss evidence for OTIO, FCP7 XML, FCPXML, CMX EDL, AAF or OMF. Optional artifact inspection identifies its actual root. Source inventory is caller evidence; this never infers destination acceptance from exporter success.

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": {
      "format": "<format>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_interchange_loss_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Absolute caller-selected local file path. Referenced media is never opened automatically.
`format`	Yes	Requested format; XML root bytes distinguish FCP7 xmeml from FCPXML. AAF/OMF semantic parsing is unavailable.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional 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.
`source_features`	No	Optional bounded source occurrence counts
`expected_cep_target`	No	Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
`expected_project_path`	No	Optional 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

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
`tool`	Yes	The registered MCP tool name.
`error`	No	Failure detail when ok is false.
`receipt`	No	Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
`idempotency`	No	Present 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.

First observedv1.30.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics beyond that: source inventory is caller-supplied evidence, artifact inspection is optional, and exporter success must never be read as destination acceptance — a real interpretive constraint an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the caveats trailing, with no filler. It is tight, though the middle sentence about artifact root detection reads as a non-sequitur without an explicit tie to the path parameter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 explained, and the description supplies exactly what structured data cannot: the inspected/approximated/dropped/unknown taxonomy, the format list, and the caller-evidence/never-infer caveats. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter including source_features counts, idempotency_key and expected_cep_target is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that source_features are caller evidence and path is optional, which is useful but marginal; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the documentation load.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Build per-feature inspected/approximated/dropped/unknown loss evidence' and enumerates the six supported formats, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It only gestures at sibling differentiation ('optional artifact inspection identifies its actual root') without naming inspect_interchange_artifact or the per-format inspectors, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implied by the framing: use this to assess what a translated interchange file preserves versus loses. The mention that artifact inspection identifies the actual root hints at a companion step, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative among the several inspect_interchange_* / inspect_otio_interchange / inspect_fcpxml_interchange siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server