Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete Marker

delete_marker
Destructive

Remove a timeline marker at a specified time position; optionally target a clip node, otherwise deletes from the sequence.

Instructions

Delete a marker at a specific time position. EXPERIMENTAL (QE DOM): the receipt reports undoStackIndex movement, which does not prove QE can reverse the marker. Every marker attempt protects an engine undo boundary; undoTracked:false means the marker did not observably advance the QE index.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idNoOptional clip node ID (deletes from sequence if omitted). Premiere 25.2.3 timeline clips have no marker collection, so this refuses there.
time_secondsYesTime position of the marker to delete

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
dataNoTool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
toolYesThe registered MCP tool name.
errorNoFailure detail when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.19.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / node_id / description
      Previous value: -"Optional clip node ID (deletes from sequence if omitted)"New value: +"Optional clip node ID (deletes from sequence if omitted). Premiere 25.2.3 timeline clips have no marker collection, so this refuses there."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6
    • 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."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.4
    • 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"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  5. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing the EXPERIMENTAL QE DOM caveat, the undoStackIndex receipt semantics, the undo-boundary protection, and the meaning of undoTracked:false. This is real behavioral context beyond structured fields, though the jargon makes it harder than it should be to extract.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the remaining sentences are dense, jargon-laden run-ons ('undoStackIndex movement... does not prove QE can reverse the marker') that take effort to parse. The caveat is worth including, but it is not structured for quick scanning.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the destructive safety profile. The description supplies the critical experimental/reversibility caveat, so only the absence of alternative-tool routing keeps it from being complete.

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 the schema already documents node_id and time_seconds (including the sequence-vs-clip fallback behavior). The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a marker') plus the scope ('at a specific time position'), which cleanly separates it from add_marker, update_marker and list_markers. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in-text.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the description never mentions the sibling marker tools or the conditions that select delete over update/add. The only routing hint (sequence vs clip) lives in the schema's node_id description, not the tool description.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools