Premiere Pro MCP Server

Batch Rename Clips

batch_rename_clips

Rename multiple timeline clips at once using a custom pattern with sequential numbering, optionally targeting selected clips on a specific video or audio track.

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; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
`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 changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedOutput schema / properties / data / description

Previous value: -"Tool-specific result data when ok is true."New value: +"Tool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it."

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema give – it does not explain that renaming is not idempotent, whether existing names are overwritten, or how linked/associated clips are affected.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the notable feature (sequential numbering) appended. Appropriately sized for this tool.

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 100% schema coverage, a full set of annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The only meaningful gap is the absence of usage/routing context for when batch rename is preferable to single-clip rename.

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 five parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the {n}/##/{name} pattern syntax. The description's 'supports sequential numbering' merely echoes the schema's pattern placeholder docs, adding no new parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (rename), resource (clips), scope (multiple, on the timeline) and mechanism (using a pattern). This implicitly but clearly distinguishes it from the single-clip 'rename_clip' sibling and from 'rename_track'/'rename_bin'.

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, no alternatives named (e.g., rename_clip, set_clip_properties_batch, select_clips_by_pattern), and no prerequisites such as needing clips selected on the target track. 'Supports sequential numbering' is a capability, not routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server