Premiere Pro MCP Server

Copy Effect Values

copy_effect_values

Copy verified scalar effect-property values from one effect to the matching effect on another clip. Both clips must already have the same effect applied.

Instructions

Copy verified scalar effect-property values from one effect to the matching effect on another clip. Both clips must already have the same effect applied. Legacy CEP deliberately refuses Blend Mode because Premiere can corrupt its enum value on cross-clip writes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`effect_name`	Yes	Display name of the effect to copy values for
`source_node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the source clip
`target_node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the target clip

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."

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"
+}

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

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation but add nothing about constraints; the description supplies the real behavioral substance: the same-effect prerequisite on both clips and a deliberate carve-out for Blend Mode due to enum corruption on cross-clip writes. That safety caveat is valuable context beyond the structured fields, though error behavior when effects differ is not described.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the action, the precondition, and the exclusion with reason. Nothing is padded and the core operation 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the key precondition and the notable carve-out. It is close to complete for a moderate-complexity mutation tool, missing only what happens on failure (e.g., mismatched effects) to reach a 5.

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% with all three parameters documented, so baseline is 3. The description implies the source/target/effect_name mapping through prose but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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 and resource: copies scalar effect-property values from one effect to the matching effect on another clip. The scoping word 'scalar' plus 'matching effect' distinguishes it from broader siblings like copy_effects_between_clips and paste_clip_attributes without needing to open a schema.

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?

States an explicit precondition ('Both clips must already have the same effect applied') and an explicit exclusion with rationale (Blend Mode is refused). It gives when-to-use context clearly but never names a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server