Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Extract Selection

extract_selection

Removes the content between sequence in/out points from every targeted unlocked track, closes the gap, and verifies later clips move up.

Instructions

EXPERIMENTAL (undocumented QE DOM: extract()). Extract (remove and close the gap) the content between the sequence in/out points on every targeted, unlocked track, then verify each targeted track lost exactly the range and its later clips moved up by the range. Requires sequence in/out marks that do not span the whole sequence. Premiere can also change untargeted tracks (for example the linked audio of targeted video, or sync-locked tracks); those are not verified but are listed in otherTracksChanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.6
    • 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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.9
    • removedInput schema / properties
      Removed value: -{}
  3. 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"
+}
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description is otherwise unusually honest: it discloses the experimental QE DOM dependency, the post-edit verification it performs, and side effects on untargeted/linked/sync-locked tracks surfaced via otherTracksChanged. However, it repeatedly says it will 'remove' content and cause tracks to 'lose' ranges, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false and only additive semantics are implied by that flag — a direct conflict that undercuts the safety profile.

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?

Front-loads the EXPERIMENTAL/undocumented-QE-DOM warning, then action, then precondition, then caveat — a natural scan order. Every sentence carries distinct information (what, prerequisite, verification, side effects); no filler.

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 zero-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the verification semantics, and the channels through which partial/extra changes are reported (otherTracksChanged), so the agent can call it and interpret results. Only the annotation mismatch remains.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (empty object schema), so there are no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on behavior and preconditions, which is the right allocation.

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 precise verb (extract/remove) and resource (content between sequence in/out points on every targeted, unlocked track), and the parenthetical '(remove and close the gap)' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling lift_selection, which leaves the gap. An agent knows exactly which edit this performs 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 a hard precondition — 'Requires sequence in/out marks that do not span the whole sequence' — which is real usage guidance, and warns that untargeted tracks may also change. It does not explicitly name the alternative to use (lift_selection vs ripple_delete) for the no-gap or gap-preserving cases, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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