Premiere Pro MCP Server

Encode Project Item

encode_project_item

Send a Premiere Pro project item to Adobe Media Encoder with a specified preset and output path. Returns a job ID; verify the queue or output file independently.

Instructions

Request an Adobe Media Encoder encode for a project item. The returned job ID is an unverified handoff; verify queue presence or the output file independently.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item_id`	Yes	Node ID or name of the project item to encode
`output_path`	Yes	Full output file path
`preset_path`	Yes	Path to an AME preset file (.epr)
`remove_on_completion`	No	Remove from queue on completion (default: true)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result data when ok is true.
`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 changedv1.14.4Aug 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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the returned job ID is an 'unverified handoff' and must be independently checked. This is genuinely useful context that the schema and annotations do not provide. It aligns with readOnlyHint=false and does not contradict any annotation.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The main action is stated first, followed by the essential caveat about verification. It is compact, readable, and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the core operation and the most important caveat, and an output schema exists to document return structure. However, for a cross-application encode operation, it omits useful context such as prerequisites (e.g., an open project, AME availability), differences from batch or file-based encoding, and failure modes beyond the unverified handoff. This leaves an agent somewhat under-informed when selecting among encode-related siblings.

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 four parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, such as required formats, path conventions, or relationships between parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description clearly identifies the action ('Request an Adobe Media Encoder encode') and the resource ('a project item'). It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools by naming AME and the project-item scope. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby tools like encode_file or start_batch_encode, so it stops short of a perfect differentiation.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as add_to_render_queue, encode_file, or start_batch_encode. The description includes an important post-call verification caveat but does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools serve overlapping purposes.

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

Deploy Server