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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List Sequence Checkpoints

list_sequence_checkpoints
Read-onlyIdempotent

List checkpoint sequences created by create_sequence_checkpoint, optionally filtered to one source sequence, showing labels, timestamps, track and clip counts. Read-only, so you can review saved checkpoints before restoring.

Instructions

List '[checkpoint]' sequences created by create_sequence_checkpoint, optionally only those cloned from one sequence, with their labels, timestamps, track and clip counts. Read-only.

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": "list_sequence_checkpoints"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sequence_idNoOnly list checkpoints of this sequence (ID or name).
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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent and non-destructive, so the trailing 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The description does add value by enumerating what is returned (labels, timestamps, track and clip counts) and the optional clone-origin filter, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or the behavioral effect of the CEP guard parameters.

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 that names the resource, the producer tool, the optional filter, and the returned fields with no padding. The bracketed '[checkpoint]' quoting is slightly awkward but harmless.

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-value explanation is not required and the description still sketches them. The read-only, zero-required-param nature is fully covered by annotations and the schema's guard descriptions; only ordering/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 sequence_id, expected_cep_target, and expected_project_path are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the sequence_id filtering idea and adds nothing about the guard parameters, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list checkpoint sequences) and ties it to its producer, create_sequence_checkpoint, so an agent can place it in the checkpoint workflow. It does not directly contrast with the other listing siblings (list_sequences, get_sequence_structure), leaving some ambiguity about which list tool to pick.

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 usage ('created by create_sequence_checkpoint', optional narrowing to a single sequence) but never states when to prefer it over list_sequences or other inspection tools, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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