Osiris Premiere MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Ripple Delete

ripple_delete

Destructive

Delete a clip and close the gap it leaves, shifting later clips on its track and all sync-locked tracks to keep audio aligned. Refuses when clips straddle the ripple point.

Instructions

Remove a clip and close the gap it leaves, shifting later clips earlier on the clip's own track and on every sync-locked track so audio stays in sync. With the default scope the clip's linked audio/video partners are removed with it and their tracks close up too, even when not sync-locked; with scope 'own_track' the partners stay in place (reported as linkedPartnersKept). Premiere's QE rippleDelete() and the DOM's rippleEdit flag are both non-functional on 26.x, so this is done explicitly and verified. Refuses without changing anything if a clip on a participating track straddles the ripple point or sits inside the range being closed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	Which tracks shift: 'sync_locked' (default) shifts the clip's track plus every sync-locked track, matching Premiere's ripple behaviour; 'own_track' shifts only the clip's own track and WILL desync other tracks.
`dry_run`	No	Validate and report the shift plan without changing the timeline (default: false)
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the clip to ripple delete
`range_content`	No	What to do about other clips on participating tracks that sit entirely inside the time range being closed (the usual case in a multicam-style sequence with aligned clips). With scope 'sync_locked' the clip's own linked audio/video partners are always removed with it, as in Premiere; with 'own_track' they are kept. 'refuse' (default) changes nothing and reports them; 'delete' also removes them, i.e. lifts that whole time segment out of every participating track and closes up. 'delete' is destructive across tracks -- the removed clips are listed in the result.
`allow_large_ripple`	No	Allow a ripple above large_ripple_threshold after its preflight estimate.
`large_ripple_threshold`	No	Mover count above which ripple_delete refuses unless allow_large_ripple is true (default: 400).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
`tool`	Yes	The registered MCP tool name.
`error`	No	Failure detail when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.19.1Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses substantial behavior: linked audio/video partners are removed even when not sync-locked under default scope, partners are kept (reported as linkedPartnersKept) under own_track, it refuses without changing anything on straddling clips, and it notes Premiere's native rippleDelete/rippleEdit are non-functional on 26.x. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then scope, then the refusal guard. Four dense sentences that mostly earn their place, though the justification about Premiere's broken QE/DOM functions is slightly peripheral to invocation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained; the description still covers refusal semantics, scope trade-offs, destructive range_content behavior, and verification. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema does not: how scope interacts with partner removal and with range_content, and the linkedPartnersKept result field. It enriches understanding of the parameters beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Remove a clip and close the gap it leaves') and immediately articulates the ripple semantics (shifting later clips earlier on the clip's track and sync-locked tracks) that separate it from plain removal tools like remove_from_timeline or lift_selection. An agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear conditions for the two scope modes ('sync_locked' default vs 'own_track' which WILL desync) and states the refusal condition (a clip straddling the ripple point or inside the range). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to route between, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server