Premiere Pro MCP Server

Preview Workflow Recipe

preview_workflow_recipe

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates and expands a declarative workflow recipe into guarded MCP routes, showing inputs and route guards without invoking routes or changing Premiere.

Instructions

Validate and expand one declarative workflow recipe into guarded MCP routes. It does not invoke any route or change Premiere.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`recipe_id`	Yes	Exact built-in or workspace recipe ID.
`recipe_file`	No	Optional contained JSON file with closed-schema custom recipes.
`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.
`provided_inputs`	No	Names of inputs already available to the caller; values are intentionally not persisted in the recipe preview.
`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.
`approved_workspace_path`	No	Absolute approved workspace containing recipe_file; required with recipe_file.

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.25.0Oct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9._:-]+$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

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"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.24.0Oct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_cep_target

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "sequence_id"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "source_item"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.",
+  "properties": {
+    "backend": {
+      "const": "cep",
+      "description": "Backend namespace for these IDs.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "clip": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Optional exact reviewed timeline clip.",
+      "properties": {
+        "effect": {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "description": "Reviewed effect and parameter identity checked before mutation.",
+          "properties": {
+            "display_name": {
+              "description": "Optional exact host display name.",
+              "maxLength": 512,
+              "minLength": 1,
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "match_name": {
+              "description": "Effect match name from host inspection.",
+              "maxLength": 512,
+              "minLength": 1,
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "parameter_index": {
+              "description": "Inspected zero-based parameter index.",
+              "maximum": 255,
+              "minimum": 0,
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "parameter_name": {
+              "description": "Exact inspected parameter name.",
+              "maxLength": 512,
+              "minLength": 1,
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "match_name",
+            "parameter_index",
+            "parameter_name"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "end_ticks": {
+          "description": "Exact expected exclusive timeline end ticks.",
+          "pattern": "^-?\\d{1,30}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "in_ticks": {
+          "description": "Exact expected source In ticks.",
+          "pattern": "^-?\\d{1,30}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "node_id": {
+          "description": "Stable CEP node ID.",
+          "maxLength": 512,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "out_ticks": {
+          "description": "Exact expected exclusive source Out ticks.",
+          "pattern": "^-?\\d{1,30}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "project_item_id": {
+          "description": "Expected source project-item node ID.",
+          "maxLength": 512,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "start_ticks": {
+          "description": "Exact expected timeline start ticks.",
+          "pattern": "^-?\\d{1,30}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "track_index": {
+          "description": "Expected zero-based track index; identity still checked.",
+          "maximum": 255,
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "track_type": {
+          "description": "Expected media track group.",
+          "enum": [
+            "video",
+            "audio"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "node_id",
+        "track_type",
+        "track_index"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "project_document_id": {
+      "description": "Exact Premiere project document ID observed during review.",
+      "maxLength": 512,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sequence_id": {
+      "description": "Stable expected active sequence ID.",
+      "maxLength": 512,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source_item": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Reviewed source identity for a source-only operation.",
+      "properties": {
+        "media_path": {
+          "description": "Optional exact source-media path.",
+          "maxLength": 4096,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "node_id": {
+          "description": "Exact project-item node ID.",
+          "maxLength": 512,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "node_id"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "backend"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / expected_project_path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "maxLength": 4096,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / receipt

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

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."

Addedv1.14.9Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description's "does not ... change Premiere" largely restates that. It does add value by revealing that output is an expanded set of routes with guards rather than a single result, but it says nothing about validation-failure behavior or what a rejected recipe looks like.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the crucial non-effect stated immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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 and a fully documented 7-parameter schema, the description only needs to convey purpose and non-effects, which it does. The main remaining gap is that it does not mention the recipe_id must resolve to a built-in or workspace recipe, or how the preview relates to a subsequent execution step.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema itself carries unusually detailed parameter docs (idempotency semantics, tick ranges, guard fields), so the baseline is a 3. The description's phrase "guarded MCP routes" gives those guard parameters a purpose, marginally exceeding the baseline, though it names no parameter explicitly.

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?

Concrete verb pair ("Validate and expand") plus a specific resource ("one declarative workflow recipe") and a concrete output ("guarded MCP routes"). An agent can distinguish it from mutating siblings because it explicitly states it does not invoke the routes; it just never names the closest sibling (search_workflow_recipes) or any apply tool.

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 negation "It does not invoke any route or change Premiere" implies this is a pre-flight/review step before execution, which is useful context. But it never says when to choose this over search_workflow_recipes (to find a recipe_id) or over the corresponding apply/execute tool, so the when-versus-alternatives guidance stays implicit.

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

Deploy Server