Premiere Pro MCP Server

Predict Timeline Edit

predict_timeline_edit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Predict affected clips for supported insert, overwrite, trim, split, move, remove, ripple, and enable edits from a canonical snapshot, returning local results without executing Premiere.

Instructions

Predict exact affected clips for a conservative supported insert/overwrite/trim/split/move/remove/ripple/enable subset using complete canonical state. Refuses unknown locks, links, source handles and retiming. Local prediction does not execute Premiere or promise native edit semantics.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`snapshot`	Yes	Version 1 canonical snapshot from inspect_timeline_snapshot or an equivalent verified adapter; exact tick strings, host identities, completeness, tracks/clips and SHA256 revision are validated before use.
`operations`	Yes	Operations run sequentially against predicted state.
`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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: input must be a complete canonical snapshot, unknown locks/links/source handles/retiming are refused, and the result is a local prediction that 'does not promise native edit semantics'. That last caveat is exactly the kind of limitation an agent needs. It stops short of saying what happens on partial/ambiguous state or how sequential operations interact on failure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the refusal and non-execution caveats. Dense with domain jargon ('canonical state', 'source handles'), but no sentence is padding.

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?

Given an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers the remaining burden well: prediction vs execution, refusal conditions, and semantic non-guarantees. The only meaningful gap is disambiguation from the other preview_edit_plan-style tools, which the sibling list makes a real ambiguity.

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 four parameters including the deeply nested expected_cep_target are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that state must be 'complete canonical', which the snapshot schema also states, plus the sequential-ordering note that is repeated in the operations schema. 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 and resource ('predict exact affected clips') over a named operation set (insert/overwrite/trim/split/move/remove/ripple/enable), which is far more precise than the title alone. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from, even though preview_edit_plan, preview_extended_edit_plan and can_execute all sit close by.

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 dry-run nature ('does not execute Premiere') implies this precedes a real edit, and 'conservative supported subset' plus the refusal list mark its boundaries. But there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over preview_edit_plan / apply_edit_plan / can_execute, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server