Premiere Pro MCP Server

Add Markers Batch

add_markers_batch

Batch-create up to 200 sequence or clip markers with per-marker validation and readback verification, enabling reliable beat grids, chapters, or client notes in one request.

Instructions

Add up to 200 sequence or clip markers in one verified CEP request (beat grids, chapters, silence reviews, client notes). Every marker is validated and range-checked before the first write; the tool reads back the marker count and each created marker's time and fails closed on any mismatch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`markers`	Yes	Markers to create, in any order; they are sorted by time before writing.
`node_id`	No	Optional timeline clip node ID; markers are then created on that clip instead of the sequence (requires the active sequence).
`sequence_id`	No	Sequence ID or name. Defaults to the active sequence.
`allow_beyond_end`	No	Allow marker times past the sequence end instead of rejecting the whole batch (default false).
`skip_existing_within_frames`	No	When above 0, skip a marker if an existing marker already sits within this many frames of it (default 0 = never skip).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.16.1Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) by disclosing validation-before-first-write, read-back verification of count and times, and fail-closed behavior on mismatch. This gives the agent critical insight into failure modes and safety guarantees that no structured field provides.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads capability, scope, and use cases; the second states the verification guarantee. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Everything an agent needs is present: capacity limit, target context (sequence vs clip), validation and fail-closed guarantees in the description; parameter semantics and sorting behavior in the schema; safety profile in annotations; return shape in the output schema. No material gap for correct 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters including maxItems=200 and the sequence-vs-clip distinction. The description adds batch-level context (capacity, verification) but no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Add up to 200 sequence or clip markers') with concrete scope limits and use-case examples (beat grids, chapters, silence reviews, client notes). The batch scale (up to 200, one request) clearly differentiates it from the sibling add_marker tool.

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?

Use cases and the batch framing ('up to 200 ... in one verified CEP request') make it clear this is the bulk marker-creation tool rather than single-add. However, it does not explicitly name add_marker as the alternative or state when the singular variant should be preferred, leaving the routing slightly implicit.

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

Deploy Server