Premiere Pro MCP Server

Plan Scene Segments

plan_scene_segments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Converts reviewed scene candidates into exact, nonoverlapping segments with bounded source handles and a rejected-candidate report, preserving linked audio without editing source media.

Instructions

Turn reviewed source scene candidates into exact nonoverlapping segments with bounded source handles, rejected-candidate report and existing marker/subclip/bin routes. Detection never edits source; linked audio is preserved in the plan.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan`	Yes	Strict scene input: source_id, source_duration_ticks, candidates[{ticks,confidence,classification cut/flash/pan/fade}], approved_indices, optionalhandle_ticks.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real behavioral context by promising nonoverlapping segments, bounded source handles, a rejected-candidate report, and preservation of linked audio. It does not clarify what happens to candidates not in approved_indices beyond the report reference, but the added substance exceeds annotation restatement.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource and packs the output artifacts tersely with zero filler. The comma-list of 'marker/subclip/bin routes' is dense jargon that slightly hurts readability, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose; the description instead covers the gaps that matter — nonoverlap guarantee, handle bounds, rejection reporting, linked-audio preservation, and the fact that detection alone never mutates sources. For a three-parameter planning tool this is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents plan, expected_cep_target, and expected_project_path in detail. The description only loosely echoes the schema ('reviewed candidates', 'bounded source handles') without explaining approved_indices semantics or how handles are bounded, 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 transformation (reviewed scene candidates → exact nonoverlapping segments) plus the artifacts it emits (bounded handles, rejected-candidate report, marker/subclip/bin routes). It is clearly distinct from the detection siblings, though it never names detect_source_scene_changes or apply_scene_review_workflow as the upstream/downstream counterparts, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 words 'reviewed source scene candidates' and 'Detection never edits source' imply this runs after detection and a human/agent review step, but the ordering and preconditions are never stated outright. No exclusion tells the agent when to prefer a sibling such as preview_scene_review_workflow or scene_edit_detection instead.

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

Deploy Server