Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Remove All Effects

remove_all_effects
Destructive

Removes every effect from a clip while preserving built-in components like Opacity and Motion, then verifies the result. Returns an error if removal paths are unavailable.

Instructions

Remove every effect from a clip, keeping its built-in components (Opacity, Motion, Volume, Channel Volume, Panner), and verify the result. EXPERIMENTAL: when Premiere has no Component.remove() (25.2), it removes through the undocumented QE DOM's targeted qeClip.getComponentAt(i).remove(). Every matching component's removal path is checked before any is removed; it returns a capability error, with nothing changed, when neither path is available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
dataNoTool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
toolYesThe registered MCP tool name.
errorNoFailure detail when ok is false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • 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."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.4
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Tool-specific result data when ok is true."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Failure detail when ok is false.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether the tool completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "description": "The registered MCP tool name.",
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "tool"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  4. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes far beyond them: it discloses exactly which components survive, that removal paths are validated before any mutation occurs (atomicity), and that a capability error leaves state unchanged when neither removal path exists. Those are precisely the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by failure semantics. The parenthetical QE DOM implementation detail (qeClip.getComponentAt(i).remove()) is borderline noise, but it directly explains the capability-error behavior, so it mostly earns its place.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers mutation semantics, preservation rules, and failure mode for this destructive operation. The one gap is routing guidance versus sibling removal tools.

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?

Only one parameter (node_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no node_id-specific detail, but the baseline for a fully documented single-parameter schema is 4.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Remove every effect from a clip, keeping its built-in components (Opacity, Motion, Volume, Channel Volume, Panner)'. The scope clause ('every' vs. a single effect) lets an agent distinguish it from remove_effect and remove_effect_by_name in the sibling list.

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?

It describes the internal fallback path (Component.remove() vs. QE DOM) and the capability-error condition, which is useful context for when the call will succeed. But it never states when to prefer this tool over remove_effect, remove_effect_by_name, or copy_effects_between_clips, which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools