Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Replace Clip

replace_clip

Swap a timeline clip with another project item on the same track while preserving its start and end, without rippling neighbors or moving linked clips. Refuses if the track is locked.

Instructions

Replace one timeline clip with a different project item on the same track, keeping the exact timeline start and end. The replacement plays from its own In mark for the original clip's duration; neighbouring clips do not ripple, and a linked partner clip on another track is left in place. Refuses without changing anything when the track is locked. Reads the track back: verified when the new clip covers the same span, committed_unverified when the span holds but the source In point cannot be confirmed, otherwise failure with Undo guidance.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip to replace
new_item_idYesNode ID or name of the new project item to replace with

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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only declaring mutation/safety flags, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it explains the replacement plays from its own In mark for the original duration, that neighbouring clips do not ripple, that a linked partner on another track is left in place, and that a locked track causes a no-op refusal. It also discloses the three readback outcomes (verified, committed_unverified, failure with Undo guidance), which is exactly the kind of post-condition detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in sentence one, and the following sentences each add distinct information (ripple/link behaviour, locked-track refusal, verification states). The third sentence is dense with implementation vocabulary, but nothing is redundant.

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?

The tool has an output schema plus annotations, and the description still covers the mutation semantics, side-effect boundaries, failure mode, and verification outcomes an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly. Nothing material is left unstated.

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% for both parameters, so node_id and new_item_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful semantics about what the new item's In point means during playback, but it does not clarify formats or how 'name' lookup works for new_item_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a precise verb+resource ('Replace one timeline clip with a different project item on the same track') and immediately scopes it with the constraint that exact timeline start and end are preserved. It is clearly distinguished from generic overwrite/split tools, but it never mentions the sibling 'replace_clip_media', which is the most likely confusion candidate.

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 through stated preconditions — it refuses when the track is locked, and it preserves neighbours and linked partner clips — so the agent can infer when it is appropriate. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, and the distinction from replace_clip_media is left to inference.

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