Premiere Pro MCP Server

Apply Edit Plan

apply_edit_plan

Apply a previewed edit plan to the timeline after revalidating all targets, using the exact confirmation token from preview_edit_plan to ensure accuracy.

Instructions

Apply a previously previewed compound edit after revalidating every target. Requires the edit capability and exact preview confirmation token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan`	Yes	An edit plan containing insert_clip and remove_clip operations (maximum 100)
`confirmation_token`	Yes	Exact token returned by preview_edit_plan

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.9Sep 8, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / plan / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -{}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / plan / propertyNames
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.4Aug 29, 2026

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"
+}

Addedv1.4.0Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds genuine behavioral context: it revalidates every target before acting, requires the edit capability, and is gated by an exact confirmation token. None of these details are expressed by the annotations, and the description does not contradict them.

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 filler: the first states the action and the key behavioral detail (revalidation), the second states the preconditions (capability and token). Everything earns its place and is front-loaded.

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 compound edit with revalidation and token gating, the description covers the core workflow, prerequisites, and safety behavior, while the output schema handles return values. The main uncovered gap is failure behavior (what happens when revalidation or token verification fails), but the essentials are all present.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the plan structure and the token's origin in preview_edit_plan. The description reinforces the confirmation_token semantics ('exact token') and the plan's compound-edit nature, but adds little meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Apply a previously previewed compound edit') and adds distinguishing scope: revalidation and the confirmation-token gate. It clearly separates this commit-step tool from siblings like preview_edit_plan, create_context_edit_plan, apply_spot_workflow_plan, and apply_mogrt_premiere_handoff.

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?

The 'previously previewed' phrasing and the requirement for an 'exact preview confirmation token' make the preview-then-apply workflow evident, and the capability requirement signals when the tool is permitted. However, it does not explicitly name preview_edit_plan as the prerequisite or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server