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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Match Frame

match_frame

Get source media information for the frame at the current playhead on a specified video or audio track to support match frame operations.

Instructions

Get source media info for the frame at the current playhead on a specific track. Useful for match frame operations.

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": "match_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_typeNoTrack type (default: video)
track_indexNoTrack index (default: 0)
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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false) carry most of the behavioral load, but the description adds nothing beyond them: it doesn't say whether the operation moves the source monitor, changes selection, or is side-effect free. The 'Get' phrasing implies a pure read while readOnlyHint=false suggests possible state changes, a tension the description never resolves.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, so an agent gets the point immediately. The second sentence is largely redundant with the tool name, which is the only real waste.

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 values needn't be described, and the nested guard parameters are richly documented in the schema. Still, for a tool with nested objects and pre-mutation identity guards, the description is thin and omits any note about the CEP-only guard semantics or when the guard may refuse; adequate but with clear gaps.

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 track_type, track_index, and the extensive expected_cep_target/expected_project_path guards are already fully documented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'a specific track' and the playhead, adding no format or defaulting detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Get source media info for the frame at the current playhead on a specific track'), which is concrete enough for an agent to act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as get_clip_at_position, get_clip_at_playhead, get_source_monitor_info, or open_in_source, and the trailing 'Useful for match frame operations' merely restates the tool name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage signal is 'Useful for match frame operations,' which is a restatement of the title rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_clip_at_position / get_playhead_position, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an active sequence or playhead placement).

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