Premiere Pro MCP Server

Apply Scene Review Workflow

apply_scene_review_workflow

Destructive

Apply an approved scene-review preview once to create reviewed source markers and audio-requesting subclips in a new verified bin, with source/project guards and failure-safe stops.

Instructions

Consume approved source-scene preview once, create reviewed source markers and/or subclips requesting audio in a new verified bin using existing typed CEP tools. Same-command source/project guards refuse relinks or project changes. Stops on failed/unverified receipt and retains bounded partial results; no rollback or false-positive correctness claim.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`confirmation_token`	Yes	Single-use preview_scene_review_workflow token.
`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.

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing failure semantics: it stops on a failed or unverified receipt, retains bounded partial results, and explicitly disclaims rollback and any correctness guarantee. Annotations already cover destructiveHint=true, so the added value here is the partial-failure and no-rollback contract. It does not describe the receipt shape itself, which the output schema covers.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the primary action front-loaded, then guards, then failure contract. Dense jargon ('typed CEP tools', 'same-command source/project guards') costs a little clarity but no sentence is filler.

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?

Given a rich input schema, an output schema, and destructive annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the prerequisite preview, the guard behavior on relink/project mismatch, and the partial-result/no-rollback outcome. Nothing an agent needs to select or safely invoke it is absent.

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 confirmation_token, idempotency_key, expected_cep_target and expected_project_path are already fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the single-use token and the guard parameters; it adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema states, so the 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 concrete verbs and resources: consume an approved source-scene preview, then create source markers and/or subclips in a new verified bin. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the read-only planning sibling by the word 'approved ... preview' feeding a mutation, though it never names preview_scene_review_workflow outright.

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?

'Consume approved source-scene preview once' implies the prerequisite planning step and the single-use nature of the token, and the guard sentence implies when the call will refuse. However, no sibling is named as the alternative and there is no explicit 'do not call before X' or 'use instead when Y' guidance.

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

Deploy Server