Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Apply Audio Effect

apply_audio_effect

Apply an audio effect to a clip by name, using Premiere Pro's effect catalog to ensure the intended effect is applied.

Instructions

Apply an audio effect to a clip. Uses QE catalog lookup, with an exact-name QE probe when enumeration is empty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip
effect_nameYesName of the audio effect

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
dataNoTool-specific result data when ok is true.
toolYesThe registered MCP tool name.
errorNoFailure detail when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. Addedv1.1.5
  4. Removedv1.1.5
  5. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already communicate mutability (readOnly=false) and non-destructiveness; the description adds a small behavioral detail: QE catalog lookup with a fallback exact-name probe when enumeration is empty. It still does not explain side effects, error behavior, or what happens when the exact-name probe fails, so it is only mildly additive.

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 no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the technical QE note is separated and kept brief.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema and mutation annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it relies on the unexplained acronym 'QE', omits how an agent should enumerate valid effect names, and provides no usage context versus the many effect-related 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema defines node_id and effect_name. The phrase 'exact-name QE probe' adds some meaning to effect_name by implying an exact catalog name is needed, but the description lacks detail on where that catalog comes from. This remains near the baseline for high schema 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, applying an audio effect to a clip, and identifies the resource type. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling apply_effect and list_available_audio_effects without requiring schema inspection.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided, nor any exclusion against apply_effect or suggestion to consult list_available_audio_effects for valid effect names. The only usage-related detail is an internal QE fallback, which does not help an agent choose among siblings.

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