Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Duplicate Clip

duplicate_clip

Copies a timeline clip and its linked audio/video to the first empty tracks above, using an overwrite edit without rippling. Fails if no free track exists; add one with add_tracks.

Instructions

EXPERIMENTAL: Duplicate a timeline clip, with its linked audio/video partner, onto the first tracks above it that are empty for the clip's time range. The copy keeps the clip's source in point and visible duration, is placed with an overwrite edit (nothing ripples), and is read back. A post-write mismatch is committed_unverified; inspect the timeline or use Undo. Fails without changes when no free track is available; add one with add_tracks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip to duplicate

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. 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."
  2. 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"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the overwrite-edit behavior, that nothing ripples, that the copy is read back, and that a post-write mismatch yields a committed_unverified state with Undo as the remedy. It also names the 'fails without changes' contract when no free track exists. No annotation contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the EXPERIMENTAL warning and the core action, then layers in behavior and failure handling. It is dense but every sentence carries information; slightly long, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 complex, experimental mutation tool, the description covers placement rules, ripple behavior, verification state, and the failure/remedy path. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (node_id) exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it; the description implicitly conveys the target clip but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Duplicate a timeline clip with its linked audio/video partner) and describes the placement semantics precisely. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like duplicate_sequence, create_subclip, or copy_effects_between_clips without opening any 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?

Gives the precondition for success ('fails without changes when no free track is available; add one with add_tracks'), which is actionable routing context. It does not, however, explicitly compare with or exclude alternatives (e.g. replace_clip, overwrite_clip), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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