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

premiere-pro-mcp

by MauricePutinas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Add video effect (QE)

premiere_add_effect
Destructive

Apply a named video effect to a specific clip on a given video track and clip index.

Instructions

Apply a video effect by name (e.g. 'Directional Blur', 'Warp Stabilizer', 'Gaussian Blur') to a clip, via the QE DOM. Experimental. clipIndex is 0-based on the track.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "premiere_add_effect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesEffect name as shown in Premiere's Effects panel.
videoTrackNo
clipIndexNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. Description adds the 'Experimental' warning and notes 0-based clipIndex. However, it does not disclose broader behavioral traits like persistence, error handling for invalid effect names, or impact on project state.

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 concise sentences with an example list. Every sentence provides essential information: action, resource, examples, experimental status, and key parameter details. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Lacks critical context such as whether a sequence must be active, what happens after applying (no output schema), and how to interpret results. For a destructive tool, more completeness is needed to ensure safe invocation.

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 low (33%), but the description adds value by giving example effect names for the 'name' parameter and explaining clipIndex is 0-based. However, 'videoTrack' parameter lacks any description, so meaning is incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'apply' and resource 'video effect by name' to a clip. Provides concrete examples like 'Directional Blur', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like premiere_add_audio or premiere_add_transition that handle different media types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Mentions 'Experimental' but does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with other effect-adding tools. Sibling list shows many similar tools but no selection criteria.

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