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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Inspect Stabilizer Status

inspect_stabilizer_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads Warp Stabilizer presence, exposed status properties, and conservative analysis state for one clip or every video clip in the active sequence without changing the project.

Instructions

Read Warp Stabilizer presence, exposed status properties, and conservative analysis state for one clip or every video clip in the active sequence. Read-only: unknown or localized host values remain unknown rather than being reported as solved.

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": "inspect_stabilizer_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idNoOptional clip node ID. Omit to inspect every video clip in the active 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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The read-only nature is already declared by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so restating it earns little. The genuinely additive part is the conservative-reporting contract: unknown or localized host values stay 'unknown' instead of being reported as solved, which tells the agent to trust absence of data rather than infer success. That single clause is useful but thin for a tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the behavioral caveat. No filler, though the 'Read-only:' lead-in duplicates the annotation and could have been spent on the guard-parameter semantics instead.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be described, and all three parameters are schema-documented, including nested guards. What remains missing is the failure/absence contract (what it reports when a clip has no Warp Stabilizer) and when to prefer stabilize_clip; given the read-only annotations and full schema, these are modest gaps rather than blocking ones.

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 node_id, expected_cep_target, and expected_project_path are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes node_id's clip-vs-sequence behavior and says nothing about the two guard parameters (identity preconditions that make the call refuse on mismatch), so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Specific verb (Read) plus specific resource (Warp Stabilizer presence, status properties, analysis state) and explicit scope (one clip via node_id or the whole active sequence). The pairing of 'inspect' with a stabilizer-specific resource cleanly separates it from action siblings like stabilize_clip or generic effect readers.

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?

The 'one clip or every video clip' phrase guides input scope, implicitly suggesting a verify-after-stabilize workflow, but no alternative tool is named and there is no when-not guidance (e.g., use stabilize_clip to apply, get_effect_properties for non-stabilizer effects). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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