Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Remove Keyframe

remove_keyframe
Destructive

Delete a keyframe at a given time from an effect property, refusing if no key exists within 0.01 seconds. Returns remaining keys for verification.

Instructions

Remove the keyframe at a time from an effect property and read the remaining keys back. Refuses, changing nothing, when no key is within 0.01s of that time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip
effect_nameYesDisplay name of the effect
time_secondsYesSeconds from the clip's start on the timeline (0 is the clip's first frame) of the keyframe to remove
property_nameYesDisplay name of the property

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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.19.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / time_seconds / description
      Previous value: -"Time in seconds of the keyframe to remove"New value: +"Seconds from the clip's start on the timeline (0 is the clip's first frame) of the keyframe to remove"
  2. 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."
  3. 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"
+}
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  5. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the read-back of remaining keys and the precise refusal rule ('changing nothing' when no key is within 0.01s), which tells the agent the call can silently no-op.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the action and then the failure/refusal condition. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or redundant.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it still notes the read-back behavior. It covers the mutation, its side effect, and the tolerance edge case; only the relationship to remove_keyframe_range is left unaddressed.

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 the schema fully documents node_id, effect_name, property_name, and time_seconds. The description's phrase 'at a time from an effect property' loosely echoes those params but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already supplies; 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?

The description states a specific verb (remove), resource (keyframe), and locus (an effect property at a given time), which is concrete enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling remove_keyframe_range, which an agent must infer from the singular 'the keyframe at a time'.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself, and the no-op tolerance is stated, but no alternatives are named. There is no guidance on choosing this tool over remove_keyframe_range for a span of keys, which is the most likely sibling confusion given 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