Premiere Pro MCP Server

Plan Media Synchronization

plan_media_synchronization

Read-onlyIdempotent

Plans media synchronization locally using audio correlation or matched anchor ticks, returning confidence plus ambiguity or silence refusals before any offset is applied.

Instructions

Plan synchronization locally from bounded normalized mono PCM correlation or caller-matched marker/timecode tick anchors. Returns confidence, ambiguous alternatives or silent/noise refusal. Placement offset application is separately reviewed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	Yes	Evidence method.
`sample_rate`	No	Audio sample rate.
`candidate_ticks`	No	Matched candidate anchors.
`max_lag_samples`	No	Search lag; work capped at2000000 comparisons.
`reference_ticks`	No	Matched reference anchors.
`candidate_samples`	No	Candidate normalized mono samples for audio method.
`reference_samples`	No	Reference normalized mono samples for audio method.
`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.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.25.0Oct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / idempotency

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Present when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.24.0Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real value: the computation happens locally, inputs are 'bounded', and the tool can refuse with 'silent/noise refusal' or return ambiguous alternatives or a confidence value. That refusal behavior and the plan-vs-apply split are not derivable from annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and evidence sources, then return shape, then scope boundary. Dense jargon ('caller-matched marker/timecode tick anchors') costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the return values needn't be spelled out, and the description nonetheless names confidence/ambiguity/refusal. For a 9-parameter tool with nested objects, the only real omission is that the description doesn't hint at the expected_project_path / expected_cep_target guard semantics, which live only in the 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%, so all nine parameters (including the nested expected_cep_target guard) are already documented. The description only echoes the audio/mono/normalized framing and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (plan) and resource (media synchronization) plus the two evidence sources it supports: bounded normalized mono PCM correlation or caller-matched marker/timecode tick anchors. This is far more specific than the title, though it doesn't name a sibling it is distinct from (e.g., review_sync_evidence, detect_audio_transients), which keeps it from a 5.

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 two methods (audio vs anchors) imply when each applies, and 'Placement offset application is separately reviewed' signals this tool plans rather than applies. However, no sibling alternative is named and no explicit condition is given for choosing the audio path over the anchors path beyond the method enum itself.

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

Deploy Server