Premiere Pro MCP Server

Batch Rename Clips

batch_rename_clips

Rename multiple timeline clips at once using a pattern with sequential numbering, zero-padded sequences, or original names. Apply consistent naming across a track or selected clips to organize projects efficiently.

Instructions

Rename multiple clips on the timeline using a pattern. Supports sequential numbering.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pattern`	Yes	Name pattern. Use {n} for a sequential number, ## for a zero-padded two-digit sequence number, and {name} for the original name (e.g., 'Scene_##', '{name}_v2')
`track_type`	Yes	Track type to rename clips on
`track_index`	Yes	Track index (0-based)
`start_number`	No	Starting number for {n} placeholder (default: 1)
`selected_only`	No	Only rename selected clips (default: false, renames all on track)

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.

Changed3 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"

changedInput schema / properties / pattern / description

Previous value: -"Name pattern. Use {n} for sequential number, {name} for original name (e.g., 'Scene_{n}', '{name}_v2')"New value: +"Name pattern. Use {n} for a sequential number, ## for a zero-padded two-digit sequence number, and {name} for the original name (e.g., 'Scene_##', '{name}_v2')"

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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0Jul 27, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.1.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation and not idempotent. The description adds the context that it renames clips on a timeline and supports sequential numbering, but does not disclose side effects such as whether source media files are left untouched or whether re-running is safe. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaningful context about what the tool does and the pattern capability it supports.

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?

With a complete input schema, useful annotations, and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It covers the batch nature and pattern behavior. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance about when to choose this over rename_clip, but that is a usage-nuance rather than a blocking omission.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mentions pattern and sequential numbering, which lightly echoes the pattern schema, but it does not meaningfully add beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Rename') and a specific resource ('multiple clips on the timeline') and adds the pattern-based renaming mechanism. This clearly differentiates it from sibling singular tools like rename_clip and rename_bin/rename_project_item.

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 phrasing 'Rename multiple clips' implies it is for batch operations rather than single-clip renaming, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given. The description leaves the decision to inference rather than naming a sibling such as rename_clip.

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

Deploy Server