Premiere Pro MCP Server

Apply Stacked Camera Edit

apply_stacked_camera_edit

Destructive

Applies a reviewed single-use stacked-camera edit plan to a cloned Premiere Pro sequence, validating track locks, source identity, speed, and enabled states before writes.

Instructions

Apply one single-use reviewed ordinary stacked-camera plan to a newly cloned sequence. Reads actual track locks, linked partners, source identity, forward1x speed and nest/reverse state before clone and before writes; unavailable getters refuse. Verifies exact enabled states and master-audio ranges. Sequential partial completion is reported; no rollback or audible sync 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 token returned by preview_stacked_camera_edit.
`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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: precondition reads (track locks, linked partners, source identity, forward1x speed, nest/reverse state) happen before clone and before writes, unavailable getters cause refusal rather than proceeding, post-write verification of enabled states and master-audio ranges, and explicit disclosure that partial sequential completion is reported with no rollback and no audible sync guarantee. That is a strong fail-closed and failure-mode disclosure for a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, then layered guard/failure semantics in short clauses. It is dense with domain jargon and packs several ideas per clause, but essentially every sentence carries behavioral information rather than restating the name.

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 destructive mutation with nested identity guards and an output schema, the description covers preconditions, refusal behavior, verification, partial-failure semantics and the absence of rollback. What remains (exact clone behavior, return payload shape) is either implied or handled by the output schema, so coverage is adequate.

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 every parameter (confirmation_token, idempotency_key, expected_cep_target, expected_project_path) is already fully documented in the schema, including idempotency retry semantics. The description mentions the single-use reviewed plan but adds no syntax or usage detail beyond the schema, 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 specific verb and resource ('apply ... reviewed ... stacked-camera plan to a newly cloned sequence'), which distinguishes it from the sibling preview_stacked_camera_edit and from generic appliers like apply_edit_plan. The phrase 'single-use reviewed ordinary' conveys the lifecycle constraint clearly enough for an agent to know this executes rather than previews.

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 description implies the tool is the execution step for a plan that has already been reviewed and previewed (single-use, confirmation_token from preview), and it notes the partial-completion outcome. It never states exclusions or names the alternative explicitly, so the routing to preview_stacked_camera_edit is left largely to the schema.

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

Deploy Server