Premiere Pro MCP Server

Save Workflow Checkpoint

save_workflow_checkpoint

Persists version 1 project/sequence checkpoint references and operation receipt digests in a private bridge directory so workflow states survive restarts without storing transcripts or replay.

Instructions

Persist version1 project/sequence checkpoint references and bounded operation receipt digests in the private bridge directory. Completed/pending/unknown/failed states survive server restart. No arguments or transcripts stored; no automatic replay or project restoration.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`checkpoint`	Yes	Strict checkpoint: schema_version 1, project_id, sequence_id, snapshot_revision, backup_reference/null, sequence_checkpoint_reference/null, operations[{operation_id,tool,state,receipt_digest/null}]. No other fields.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-chosen key (1-128 chars of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -) for this intended edit. Pass a fresh key per edit and reuse it only when retrying that same edit, for example after a client-side timeout. A repeat with the same tool, key and arguments is not run again: while the first call is running it fails with IDEMPOTENCY_IN_PROGRESS (poll get_last_operations); after it finished it returns the original outcome marked replayed. A definite failure with nothing applied (receipt outcome not_applied) may be retried with the same key. Reusing a key with different arguments fails with IDEMPOTENCY_KEY_REUSED. Scoped to this MCP session (the stdio server process or one HTTP session) and held in memory only (200 keys, 1 hour); it does not survive a restart or reconnect. Read-only invocations are never deduplicated.
`expected_cep_target`	No	Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
`expected_project_path`	No	Optional absolute saved-project path. Every generated CEP command refuses before its body when the active project differs or is unsaved. UXP commands refuse this CEP-only guard; local-only tools do not inspect Premiere. Omit to keep existing behavior.

Output 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.
`receipt`	No	Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
`idempotency`	No	Present when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.25.0Oct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional client-chosen key (1-128 chars of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -) for this intended edit. Pass a fresh key per edit and reuse it only when retrying that same edit, for example after a client-side timeout. A repeat with the same tool, key and arguments is not run again: while the first call is running it fails with IDEMPOTENCY_IN_PROGRESS (poll get_last_operations); after it finished it returns the original outcome marked replayed. A definite failure with nothing applied (receipt outcome not_applied) may be retried with the same key. Reusing a key with different arguments fails with IDEMPOTENCY_KEY_REUSED. Scoped to this MCP session (the stdio server process or one HTTP session) and held in memory only (200 keys, 1 hour); it does not survive a restart or reconnect. Read-only invocations are never deduplicated.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9._:-]+$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / idempotency

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Present when idempotency_key deduplicated this call: replayed is true when the original outcome was returned instead of running again.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.24.1Oct 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / checkpoint / description

Previous value: -"Strict version1 checkpoint with project_id, sequence_id, snapshot_revision, backup_reference/null, sequence_checkpoint_reference/null, operations[{operation_id,tool,state,receipt_digest/null}]."New value: +"Strict checkpoint: schema_version 1, project_id, sequence_id, snapshot_revision, backup_reference/null, sequence_checkpoint_reference/null, operations[{operation_id,tool,state,receipt_digest/null}]. No other fields."

Addedv1.24.0Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), the description discloses the storage location, that the four operation states survive a server restart, and what is deliberately NOT stored (arguments, transcripts) and NOT done (replay, restoration). That is genuinely useful context for a persisting write tool, though it omits any mention of the idempotency_key retry semantics that live in the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and location, followed by durability and then explicit exclusions. No filler and nothing repeated from the name or annotations.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations already cover return values and safety, and the description fills in durability and non-storage guarantees for what is a complex, nested-object write tool. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation rather than missing behavioral facts, so it is nearly complete.

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 already documents checkpoint, idempotency_key and the optional guard objects in detail. The description adds only a light gloss ('version1 ... references and bounded operation receipt digests') and defers all field-level meaning to the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 uses a specific verb ('Persist') plus a precise resource ('version1 project/sequence checkpoint references and bounded operation receipt digests') and even names the storage location ('private bridge directory'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the confusingly similar siblings create_sequence_checkpoint and inspect_workflow_checkpoint, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus create_sequence_checkpoint, list_sequence_checkpoints or inspect_workflow_checkpoint. The line 'no automatic replay or project restoration' hints at scope but is framed as a negative behavior, not as a routing rule, so the agent receives no explicit selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server