Premiere Pro MCP Server

Move Clip To Track

move_clip_to_track

Moves a clip to another track of the same type while preserving its start, duration, and source in/out. Refuses locked or occupied destinations and verifies the move.

Instructions

Move a clip to a different track of the same type, keeping its start, duration, and source in/out. EXPERIMENTAL: uses the undocumented QE DOM moveToTrack. Refuses without changing anything when the origin or destination track is locked or the destination range is occupied. Reads the timeline back: verified only when the clip is on the destination track with the same span and source range and is gone from the origin track; committed_unverified when the source range cannot be read; otherwise failure with Undo guidance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the clip
`target_track_index`	Yes	Target track index (0-based)

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."

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Exceptional disclosure beyond the annotations: flags the tool as EXPERIMENTAL built on the undocumented QE DOM moveToTrack, guarantees atomic refusal ('without changing anything'), and details the three post-move read-back outcomes (verified, committed_unverified, failure with Undo guidance). This is consistent with destructiveHint=false and far exceeds what the annotations convey.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, then failure/verification semantics. The sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; the only mild drag is the packed final sentence covering three outcomes at once.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with an output schema, this covers what an agent needs: experimental status, atomicity, refusal conditions, and the verification states that map to the result. Nothing critical is missing, and return-value details are legitimately left to the output schema.

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% for both parameters (node_id, target_track_index), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the implicit 'same type' constraint on the target track; it does not explain indexing, valid ranges, or the clip-identity assumption. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (Move) plus resource (clip) with an explicit scope constraint: 'to a different track of the same type, keeping its start, duration, and source in/out.' That constraint plus the track-to-track framing distinguishes it from the family of positional edits like move_clip, set_clip_position, or overwrite_clip.

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?

States operational preconditions clearly: it refuses when origin/destination track is locked or the destination range is occupied. That tells the agent when the call will not succeed, which is strong context, but it never names an alternative tool (e.g. move_clip, ripple_delete) or when to prefer this over them.

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

Deploy Server