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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Search Project Items

search_project_items
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Premiere Pro project items by name, media extension, offline status, item type, or color label, and return matching items with full details.

Instructions

Search for project items by name, media file extension, offline status, or color label. Returns matching items with full details.

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": "search_project_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoSearch query (matched against item name, case-insensitive substring match)
extensionNoFilter by file extension (e.g., 'mp4', 'wav', 'png'). Without dot.
item_typeNoFilter by item type (default: all)
color_labelNoFilter by color label index (0-15)
max_resultsNoMaximum results to return (default: 100)
offline_onlyNoIf true, only return offline/missing items
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that matching items are returned with full details, but it does not mention pagination, performance characteristics, or any permission requirements. With the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the primary operation and criteria. Every phrase contributes to identifying what can be searched and what is returned.

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 tool has eight parameters, including nested optional guard objects, but the schema is fully described and an output schema exists. The description covers the core search behavior and return shape adequately, though it does not mention item_type, max_results, or the optional guard parameters.

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 the schema already documents all parameters including the optional CEP guard fields. The description maps several searchable criteria to parameters such as query, extension, offline_only, and color_label, but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: search for project items. It enumerates searchable criteria (name, extension, offline status, color label), making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_project_items or find_project_item_by_name, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed criteria: an agent can infer this tool is for filtered project-item lookup. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not conditions, or named alternatives such as list_project_items or find_project_item_by_name.

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