Premiere Pro MCP Server

Export Sequence Marker Review Frames

export_sequence_marker_review_frames

Export up to 24 composite PNG frames at active-sequence marker positions in one request to support marker-driven review, reading markers without adding or changing them.

Instructions

Export up to 24 file-verified composite frames at active-sequence marker positions in one bridge request for marker-driven review. It reads markers and writes image files only; it does not add, update, or remove Premiere markers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum chronological marker frames to export (default: 12; minimum: 1; maximum: 24).
`output_dir`	Yes	Existing directory where marker_review_001.png through marker_review_NNN.png will be written
`end_seconds`	No	Optional positive exclusive upper bound for marker positions in seconds.
`marker_type`	No	Optional exact Premiere marker type to include (for example Comment or Chapter).
`start_seconds`	No	Optional non-negative lower bound for marker positions in seconds.

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.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

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."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.9Sep 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
Addedv1.14.4Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: it writes image files only, leaves markers untouched, caps output at 24 frames, and batches via one bridge request. It omits overwrite/idempotency behavior of the written PNGs, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, scoping detail front-loaded and the non-mutation constraint second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. A note on whether existing files in output_dir get overwritten would close the last gap.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 24-frame cap and the marker-position targeting, adding marginal emphasis but no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Export) and resource (composite frames at active-sequence marker positions) with the scope qualifier 'up to 24' and 'file-verified'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the clip-based siblings via 'marker positions', but never names an alternative tool, so it falls short of the top tier.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for marker-driven review' implies the scenario, and the second sentence usefully rules out marker mutation (no add/update/remove), but no sibling alternatives such as export_sequence_clip_review_frames or export_frame are named, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

Deploy Server