premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Preview Project Intake

preview_project_intake

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspects a bounded Premiere project against an explicit intake template, returning a path-redacted report and a non-mutating organization proposal without altering the project.

Instructions

Inspect a bounded Premiere project against an explicit facility intake template and return a path-redacted report plus a non-mutating organization proposal. It never changes Premiere or persists the template.

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": {
      "template": "<template>"
    },
    "name": "preview_project_intake"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`template`	Yes	Versioned facility policy. Unknown fields and unsafe matching expressions are rejected by the intake engine.
`max_items`	No	Maximum project items to inspect; defaults to 2000. Truncation returns an incomplete report.
`include_paths`	No	Include observed media paths in findings. Defaults to false; hashes are returned instead.
`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 and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value on top: output is path-redacted by default, the template is never persisted, and the project is never mutated. The 'bounded' wording hints at scope limits without spelling out max_items truncation, keeping it just below top marks.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The primary action and return artifacts come first, and the non-mutation guarantee is front-loaded as the second sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return contents, and the non-mutation/redaction guarantees cover the key behavioral risks for a preview tool. What is slightly under-specified is what 'bounded' concretely means and how the reviewed expected_cep_target guard interacts, but the rich schema and annotations fill most of that gap.

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% with rich nested descriptions, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description lightly reinforces path-redaction (relating to include_paths) and bounding (max_items) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: inspect a bounded Premiere project against an explicit facility intake template, returning a path-redacted report and a non-mutating organization proposal. The read-only preview nature is clear, though it does not name the closest sibling (preview_facility_metadata_intake) to differentiate the two intake-preview 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?

'It never changes Premiere or persists the template' signals this is a safe dry-run preview, which implicitly suggests using it before any apply step. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over siblings like audit_project_structure or preview_facility_metadata_intake, leaving the routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server