Premiere Pro MCP Server

Remove Effect

remove_effect

Destructive

Remove a specified effect from a Premiere Pro clip by index or name, then verify its components; built-in components cannot be removed.

Instructions

Remove one effect from a clip by its index or name (the last instance when names repeat) and verify the clip's components afterwards. Built-in components (Opacity, Motion, Volume, Channel Volume, Panner) cannot be removed. 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

Name	Required	Description
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the clip
`effect_name`	No	Name of the effect to remove (alternative to effect_index)
`effect_index`	No	Index of the effect to remove (0-based). Use get_clip_properties to see effects list.

Output Schema

TableJSON 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

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."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.9Sep 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / effect_index / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.14.4Aug 29, 2026

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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0Jul 27, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.1.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations: it discloses the experimental QE DOM fallback path used on Premiere 25.2, the pre-flight check of every matching component's removal path, and the all-or-nothing failure mode (capability error with nothing changed). This is exactly the transactional context an agent needs before mutating a timeline.

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, then the constraints, then the fallback mechanics. Three sentences are dense but each earns its place; the QE DOM sentence is long but carries the rollback guarantee.

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?

For a destructive tool with annotations and an output schema already present, the description covers everything the agent must know: addressing, built-in exclusions, post-verification, and the no-op-on-failure contract. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics by clarifying that a name match resolves to the last instance when names repeat, which the schema does not state. It adds nothing further for node_id or effect_index.

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 specific verb (remove) plus resource (one effect from a clip) and the two addressing modes (index or name). It also disambiguates from siblings like remove_all_effects and remove_effect_by_name by scoping itself to a single effect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear exclusion rule (built-in components such as Opacity, Motion, Volume cannot be removed) and notes that removal is verified afterwards, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling tools for bulk or name-based removal.

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

Deploy Server