Premiere Pro MCP Server

Rename Project Item

rename_project_item

Rename any project item in Adobe Premiere Pro's project panel by specifying its ID and new name, keeping assets organized.

Instructions

Rename a project item in the project panel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	Node ID or name of the project item
`new_name`	Yes	New name for the item

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result data when ok is true.
`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 changedv1.14.4Aug 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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds only the 'project panel' context and gives no further behavioral detail, but nothing contradicts annotations.

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?

One short declarative sentence with no filler; it is concise and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a simple two-required-param rename operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation and behavioral caveats, which a low-complexity tool can partially absorb.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description introduces no additional parameter-level detail beyond 'project item' in the panel.

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?

States a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('project item in the project panel'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling rename tools like rename_bin, rename_clip, or rename_track.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The phrase 'project panel' weakly implies the target type, but an agent must infer from the name alone that this differs from the bin/clip/track rename siblings.

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

Deploy Server