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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Verify Delivery File

verify_delivery_file

Check that an exported delivery file exists as a non-empty regular file, compute its SHA-256 or SHA-512 checksum, and compare it against expected size or checksum values to confirm the export is intact.

Instructions

Verify that an exported delivery is a non-empty regular file and calculate a SHA-256 or SHA-512 checksum; optionally compare expected size and checksum

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": {
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "verify_delivery_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_pathYesFull path to the exported delivery file
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_checksumNoOptional expected hexadecimal checksum to compare
checksum_algorithmNoChecksum algorithm (default: sha256)
minimum_size_bytesNoMinimum acceptable file size in bytes (default: 1)
expected_cep_targetNoOptional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
expected_size_bytesNoOptional exact expected file size in bytes
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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that the check covers non-emptiness, file type, and checksum algorithms, which is useful context. However the description never says whether a failed check raises an error, returns a boolean, or how the CEP/project-path guards alter behavior, and the pure-verification framing sits awkwardly with readOnlyHint=false without explanation.

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 with the core operation first and optional comparisons after the semicolon. It is efficient, though the dense packing of file-type, checksum, and comparison clauses makes it slightly hard to scan.

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?

With eight parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the main verification semantics but omits how the CEP identity guard, project-path guard, and idempotency key interact with a read-style verification. Adequate but leaves behavioral gaps for a tool with this much surface area.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including idempotency_key, expected_cep_target, and expected_project_path is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the checksum algorithm choice and the size/checksum comparisons, adding little beyond the schema; 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: verifies an exported delivery is a non-empty regular file, computes a SHA-256/SHA-512 checksum, and optionally compares expected size/checksum. That is far more specific than the title. It does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling verify_delivery_conformance, so the agent must guess which verifier to call.

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 phrase "exported delivery" and the optional comparison parameters imply this is a post-export validation step, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to verify_delivery_conformance or export_and_verify as alternatives.

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