Premiere Pro MCP Server

Delete Multiple Project Items

delete_multiple_project_items

Destructive

Delete several Premiere Pro project items and verify each removal; timeline-used items are refused unless confirmed.

Instructions

Delete several project items (bins, sequences, clips or files) and read back that each is gone. Every item is checked before any is deleted. organize_project_items_uxp with action 'remove' (authenticated UXP bridge) is the preferred, documented route; this CEP fallback deletes clips and files through a temporary bin, which cannot be undone here. Items (or bins whose contents are) used on a timeline are refused unless confirm_remove_from_sequences is true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_ids`	Yes	Array of node IDs or names of items to delete
`confirm_remove_from_sequences`	No	Delete even when an item (or something inside a bin) is used in a sequence, which also removes those timeline clips (default: false).

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.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

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

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_remove_from_sequences

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Delete even when an item (or something inside a bin) is used in a sequence, which also removes those timeline clips (default: false).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.0Jul 27, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / item_ids / items
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv1.1.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that every item is validated before any deletion (atomic pre-check), that deletion goes through a temporary bin, that it cannot be undone here, and that timeline-used items are refused unless confirmed. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler: scope, atomicity, routing/fallback, and the refusal rule are each front-loaded in order of decision relevance. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive batch tool with a pre-validation pass, an irreversible-in-place fallback path, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs to call it safely and correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description still adds value by stating the confirm flag's real effect (overrides the timeline-usage refusal) rather than just restating the default:false note.

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 (delete) with the exact resource types (bins, sequences, clips, files) and its scope (multiple, not single). It also distinguishes itself from sibling delete_project_item and delete_bin by naming the items it covers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: organize_project_items_uxp with action 'remove' is the preferred documented route, this CEP call is the fallback. It also states the condition under which items are refused and what flag overrides that refusal.

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

Deploy Server