Premiere Pro MCP Server

Acknowledge Operation Recovery

acknowledge_operation_recovery

Confirms a user-reviewed reconciliation of uncertain Premiere operations after inspecting host state, using current recovery and host-state revisions. Does not undo or retry the edit.

Instructions

Acknowledge user-reviewed reconciliation of uncertain execution after current-state inspection. Requires the exact latest recovery and host-state revisions. Consumed operation IDs remain unavailable for replay; acknowledgement does not undo or retry a host edit.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`backend`	Yes	Execution backend whose uncertain operations should be inspected.
`reviewed`	Yes	True only after reviewing current host state and reconciling the uncertain operations.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional 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 one HTTP session) 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_target`	No	Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
`expected_project_path`	No	Optional 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.
`expected_recovery_revision`	Yes	CEP recoveryRevision or UXP transport.recoveryRevision returned by inspection.
`expected_host_state_revision`	Yes	Exact hostStateRevision returned by the latest inspected bounded host state.
`expected_panel_recovery_revision`	No	UXP panel.recoveryRevision returned by inspection; required for UXP.
`expected_shared_recovery_revision`	No	UXP shared.recoveryRevision when shared Premiere execution recovery is required.

Output 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.
`receipt`	No	Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
`idempotency`	No	Present 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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.25.0Oct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional 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 one HTTP session) and held in memory only (200 keys, 1 hour); it does not survive a restart or reconnect. Read-only invocations are never deduplicated.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9._:-]+$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / idempotency

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Present when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.24.0Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing real consequences: it is a write (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) that requires fresh revisions, permanently consumes the operation IDs so they cannot be replayed, and neither undoes nor retries the underlying host edit. That is materially useful and consistent with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the revision prerequisite, then the consequences of acknowledging. No restatement of the title and no filler.

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?

For a state-changing, revision-guarded tool with an output schema, the description covers preconditions, irreversibility of consumption, and the fact that acknowledgement is not a retry. Remaining detail (per-backend revision fields, idempotency) is fully carried by the schema.

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% and the nine parameters (including the nested expected_cep_target and idempotency_key semantics) are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the recovery and host-state revisions must be the exact latest values; it adds no format or fallback detail beyond that. 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 and resource (acknowledge ... operation recovery) plus the precondition (user-reviewed reconciliation of uncertain execution after current-state inspection). An agent can tell this is the closure step after inspect_operation_recovery, though that sibling is never named outright.

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?

Establishes clear context: call only after inspecting current host state and after a user has reviewed the uncertain operations. The prerequisite of the exact latest recovery and host-state revisions is explicit, and 'does not undo or retry a host edit' rules out a misuse. It stops short of naming the inspection sibling or stating explicit when-not-to-call cases.

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

Deploy Server