Skip to main content
Glama

Set Xmp Metadata

set_xmp_metadata

Merge a raw XMP XML patch into a Premiere project item's existing metadata without deleting unrelated fields; writes the updated XMP block to the source media file on disk.

Instructions

Merge a raw XMP XML patch into a project item's existing XMP metadata without removing unrelated fields. WARNING: Premiere writes XMP into the source media file on disk (the file's metadata block and modification time change; picture and sound are untouched). Each supplied leaf field is compared with host readback (maximum 256); unreadable readback remains committed_unverified. Requires the filesystem capability.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>",
      "xmp_xml": "<xmp_xml>"
    },
    "name": "set_xmp_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYesNode ID or name of the project item, or the sequence ID of a sequence
xmp_xmlYesWell-formed XMP XML containing only the fields to add or replace
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-chosen key (1-128 chars of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -) for this intended edit. Pass a fresh key per edit and reuse it only when retrying that same edit, for example after a client-side timeout. A repeat with the same tool, key and arguments is not run again: while the first call is running it fails with IDEMPOTENCY_IN_PROGRESS (poll get_last_operations); after it finished it returns the original outcome marked replayed. A definite failure with nothing applied (receipt outcome not_applied) may be retried with the same key. Reusing a key with different arguments fails with IDEMPOTENCY_KEY_REUSED. Scoped to this MCP session (the stdio server process, or the HTTP server process when Streamable HTTP is stateless per request) and held in memory only (200 keys, 1 hour); it does not survive a restart or reconnect. Read-only invocations are never deduplicated.
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only declaring the tool non-read-only, the description carries the real burden and does so well: it warns that Premiere writes XMP into the source media file on disk, that the metadata block and modification time change while picture and sound are untouched, that readback is compared per leaf field up to a cap of 256, and that unreadable readback yields a committed_unverified outcome. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure an agent needs before mutating source media.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the disk-write warning, with no filler. It is dense with host-internal jargon ('host readback', 'committed_unverified') that is not defined here, though the phrasing remains compact.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the essential risk of on-disk mutation plus the capability prerequisite. It does not explain what the expected_cep_target and expected_project_path guards do at call time, leaving that entirely to the schema's own descriptions; acceptable given 100% coverage, but a one-clause mention would round it out.

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%, including a very detailed idempotency_key and expected_cep_target guard, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the 256-leaf readback limit and the committed_unverified outcome, which are behavioral rather than per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Merge a raw XMP XML patch into a project item's existing XMP metadata without removing unrelated fields.' Merge semantics and non-destructive scope are unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like set_metadata or set_project_panel_metadata, so an agent must infer which metadata layer this targets.

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 rather than stated: the merge-without-removing wording hints this is the additive XMP path, and 'Requires the filesystem capability' signals a prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus set_metadata, get_xmp_metadata, or add_custom_metadata_field, so routing between the metadata family is left 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

Other Tools