premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Inspect Workflow Job

inspect_workflow_job

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect exact local or UXP job identity to confirm tracked workflow status and prevent missing receipts from being mistaken for completion.

Instructions

Inspect exact local or UXP job identity. Host terminal events do not verify an output artifact; an absent job is unknown, never completed.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "origin": "<origin>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_workflow_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`job_id`	Yes	Exact tracked job ID; missing receipts never imply completion.
`origin`	Yes	Receipt owner backend; never silently changes route.
`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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important semantic context: host terminal events do not prove an output artifact exists, and a missing job must not be treated as completed. This materially improves correct interpretation beyond the structured annotations, though it does not describe returned job states or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the key caveat about absent or terminal events. There is no wasted text.

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?

The description is complete enough given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, and it supplies the critical caveat that absence is not completion. A little more routing guidance against sibling job tools would make it fully complete.

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 job_id, origin, and the optional CEP/project guards are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces exact job identity and local/UXP origin but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline.

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: inspecting local or UXP workflow job identity, with scope limited to exact tracked jobs. It is clear enough to distinguish inspection from mutation-oriented siblings like cancel_workflow_job, but it does not explicitly name when to choose it over wait_workflow_job or status tools.

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 description implies use for checking exact job identity and warns that absent jobs are unknown, never completed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus wait_workflow_job, cancel_workflow_job, or other job/status inspection tools.

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

Deploy Server