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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Verify Premiere Connection

verify_premiere_connection
Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs a read-only first-run check that confirms the MCP server, selected Premiere bridge, active project, and active sequence are connected without exposing project names, paths, or media details.

Instructions

Run a safe, read-only first-run check. It proves that this MCP server, the selected Premiere bridge, an active project, and an active sequence are connected without returning project names, paths, or media 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": "verify_premiere_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backendNoBridge to check. Omit to select connected UXP by default and fall back to CEP when UXP is unavailable. An explicit backend never falls back.
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 structurally. The description still adds real value beyond that by disclosing a privacy guarantee ('without returning project names, paths, or media details'), which an agent cannot infer from annotations. It omits failure semantics, such as what a failed check reports or whether it makes calls to the host.

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 tight sentences with the scope statement first and the privacy caveat second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding or restated title.

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?

The tool has an output schema and full annotation coverage, so return values and safety need not be re-explained. But the schema exposes substantial asserted-identity parameters (expected_project_path, expected_cep_target with clip/tick ranges) that make this a pre-mutation guard, not merely a first-run smoke test, and the description never mentions that capability. An agent reading only the prose would under-use the tool.

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 fully documents backend, expected_cep_target, and expected_project_path, and the baseline is 3. The description only gestures at parameter meaning via 'the selected Premiere bridge', leaving the backend selector and the identity-guard parameters unexplained in prose. Since the schema carries that load, the baseline holds rather than being penalized.

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 gives a specific verb and a precise enumeration of what is verified: this MCP server, the selected Premiere bridge, an active project, and an active sequence. That is far more informative than the tautological name. It stops short of naming the near-neighbor siblings (verify_after_effects_connection, ping, get_capabilities), so an agent still has to infer the boundary from the word 'Premiere'.

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?

'First-run check' implies the invocation context, which is genuine usage framing rather than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not, no mention of what to do on failure, and no named alternative for the closely related verification siblings listed. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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