Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Add Marker To Project Item

add_marker_to_project_item

Add a source clip marker to a Premiere Pro project item at a set time, with optional name, type, color, comments, and duration.

Instructions

Add a marker to a project item (source clip marker). EXPERIMENTAL QE: records an observed marker boundary for guarded Undo/Redo; crossing it is refused by default, and unreadable history records unknown protection. This boundary does not verify native marker reversal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoMarker name
typeNoMarker type (default: Comment)
item_idYesNode ID or name of the project item
commentsNoMarker comments
color_indexNoColor label index (0-7)
time_secondsYesTime in seconds for the marker
duration_secondsNoDuration of the marker in seconds (0 for point marker)

Output Schema

TableJSON 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / description
      Previous value: -"Tool-specific result data when ok is true."New value: +"Tool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.4
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Tool-specific result data when ok is true."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Failure detail when ok is false.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether the tool completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "description": "The registered MCP tool name.",
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "tool"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds significant context beyond them: it records an observed marker boundary for guarded Undo/Redo, that crossing it is refused by default, and that unreadable history yields unknown protection. This is useful, non-obvious behavioral disclosure, though the QE jargon is dense and its practical impact could be spelled out more plainly.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a dense but purposeful behavioral sentence. It is appropriately short, though the QE sentence leans on internal jargon that reduces immediate readability rather than wasting space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with 100% schema coverage, the description is complete enough to call the tool, with the only real gap being the missing routing guidance versus the marker siblings.

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 all 7 parameters (including the type enum and duration semantics) are already documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 clear verb+resource ('Add a marker to a project item') and clarifies the target as a 'source clip marker' via parenthetical, which helps distinguish it from timeline/sequence marker siblings. However, it never names add_marker or add_markers_batch or explains how this differs from them, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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 '(source clip marker)' parenthetical implies when this tool applies (project-item/source context), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to add_marker/add_markers_batch for the alternative scope. Usage is only implied.

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