Premiere Pro MCP Server

Export Sequence Review Frames

export_sequence_review_frames

Export 2-24 evenly spaced, file-verified frames from an active sequence range in one round trip for visual review. Samples rendered output without verifying playback, audio, or editorial quality.

Instructions

Export 2-24 evenly spaced, file-verified frames from an active-sequence range in one bridge round trip for visual review. This samples rendered output; it does not prove playback, audio, or editorial quality.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`output_dir`	Yes	Existing directory where review_001.png through review_NNN.png will be written
`end_seconds`	No	Optional positive range end in seconds (default: sequence end)
`frame_count`	No	Number of evenly spaced frames to export (default: 6; minimum: 2; maximum: 24)
`start_seconds`	No	Optional non-negative range start in seconds (default: sequence start)

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

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."

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 declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does: 'one bridge round trip' discloses a performance characteristic and 'file-verified' tells the agent the frames are confirmed on disk, plus the explicit non-goal about playback/audio/editorial quality.

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 sentences, no filler. The capability and scope are front-loaded, and the limitation sentence is compact and earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 safety, a full input schema, and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It supplies the quality-scope caveat and round-trip behavior an agent needs to set expectations; only explicit sibling routing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults, min/max, and filename output pattern. The description's '2-24 evenly spaced' restates the frame_count bounds without adding 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), resource (evenly spaced, file-verified frames), and scope (active-sequence range, 2-24 frames). The 'active-sequence range' and 'evenly spaced' framing implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like export_sequence_marker_review_frames and export_sequence_clip_review_frames, though it never names them.

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?

It gives the intended use case ('for visual review') and a scope exclusion ('does not prove playback, audio, or editorial quality'), which help an agent decide. However, it never states when to prefer this over the marker- or clip-based review-frame siblings, so routing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server