Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Remove Effect By Name

remove_effect_by_name
Destructive

Remove every instance of a specific effect from a Premiere Pro clip by display name, then verify the clip's remaining components.

Instructions

Remove all instances of a specific effect from a clip by display name and verify the clip's components afterwards. 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
effect_nameYesDisplay name of the effect to remove

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructive/not idempotent; the description adds substantial behavior: every matching component's removal path is validated before any removal occurs, the operation is effectively all-or-nothing, and it returns a capability error with nothing changed when neither path exists. This is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation context that matters for an experimental mutation tool.

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 in the first clause; the parenthetical version number (25.2) and QE DOM internals are dense but do carry real routing/behavioral weight. Slightly verbose, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 annotations covering the destructive profile, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. The one open gap is what happens when no component matches the name (silent no-op vs error), which an agent would want to know.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully documented, so the schema already carries the load. The description reinforces that effect_name is a display name but adds no format, matching, or case-sensitivity detail beyond that.

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), resource (all instances of a specific effect), and scope qualifier (from a clip, by display name), which separates it from the broader remove_effect/remove_all_effects siblings by its name-targeted, all-instances semantics.

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 description explains the internal condition that switches between the Component.remove() path and the QE DOM fallback, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus remove_effect, remove_all_effects, or copy_effects_between_clips. Usage context is implied by the experimental note rather than stated as routing advice.

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