Premiere Pro MCP Server

Open Extension

open_extension

Open an installed CEP extension panel in Premiere Pro by its extension id. Verify visibility manually, since success is reported as unverified.

Instructions

Open an installed CEP extension panel in Premiere Pro by its extension id (see list_extensions). CEP has no panel-visibility getter, so success is committed_unverified: check the panel in Premiere. Another extension cannot be closed from here. CEP connector only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`params`	No	Optional startup parameters passed to the extension; usually omitted
`extension_id`	Yes	Extension id from list_extensions, for example com.example.panel
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-chosen key (1-128 chars of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -) for this intended edit. Pass a fresh key per edit and reuse it only when retrying that same edit, for example after a client-side timeout. A repeat with the same tool, key and arguments is not run again: while the first call is running it fails with IDEMPOTENCY_IN_PROGRESS (poll get_last_operations); after it finished it returns the original outcome marked replayed. A definite failure with nothing applied (receipt outcome not_applied) may be retried with the same key. Reusing a key with different arguments fails with IDEMPOTENCY_KEY_REUSED. Scoped to this MCP session (the stdio server process or one HTTP session) and held in memory only (200 keys, 1 hour); it does not survive a restart or reconnect. Read-only invocations are never deduplicated.
`expected_cep_target`	No	Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
`expected_project_path`	No	Optional absolute saved-project path. Every generated CEP command refuses before its body when the active project differs or is unsaved. UXP commands refuse this CEP-only guard; local-only tools do not inspect Premiere. Omit to keep existing behavior.

Output 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.
`receipt`	No	Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
`idempotency`	No	Present when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.26.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent profile, so the description's real contribution is the disclosure that CEP has no panel-visibility getter and success is 'committed_unverified' requiring manual verification in Premiere — non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise misread as confirmed success. It does not discuss the idempotency or expected_cep_target guard behavior, but those are fully covered in the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its argument source, followed by two caveats that each carry distinct information. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's main obligation is the unverifiable-success semantics, which it delivers clearly. The CEP-only restriction on the guard parameters is described in the schema, leaving little meaningful gap, though a note on failure modes would close it fully.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only adds provenance for extension_id ('see list_extensions') and says nothing about params, idempotency_key, expected_cep_target, or expected_project_path, all of which are documented in the schema already.

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 specific verb and resource ('Open an installed CEP extension panel in Premiere Pro by its extension id') and scopes it to CEP. It names the sibling that supplies the required input (list_extensions), so an agent can distinguish it from close/visibility-related operations without opening the 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 the prerequisite for the required argument (extension id comes from list_extensions) and an explicit boundary ('Another extension cannot be closed from here'), which steers away from a plausible wrong use. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use for closing or for other backends beyond 'CEP connector only'.

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

Deploy Server