Premiere Pro MCP Server

Search Workflow Recipes

search_workflow_recipes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find audited built-in or workspace-local workflow recipes by query, tag, or ID, and preview declarative recipes that cannot run arbitrary tools or scripts.

Instructions

Search audited built-in and explicitly supplied workspace-local workflow recipes. Recipes are declarative previews and cannot execute arbitrary tools or scripts.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Optional case-insensitive title, description, tag, or ID query.
`recipe_file`	No	Optional contained JSON file with closed-schema custom recipes.
`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.
`approved_workspace_path`	No	Absolute approved workspace containing recipe_file; required with recipe_file.

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"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.24.0Oct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_cep_target

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "sequence_id"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "source_item"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.",
+  "properties": {
+    "backend": {
+      "const": "cep",
+      "description": "Backend namespace for these IDs.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "clip": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Optional exact reviewed timeline clip.",
+      "properties": {
+        "effect": {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "description": "Reviewed effect and parameter identity checked before mutation.",
+          "properties": {
+            "display_name": {
+              "description": "Optional exact host display name.",
+              "maxLength": 512,
+              "minLength": 1,
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "match_name": {
+              "description": "Effect match name from host inspection.",
+              "maxLength": 512,
+              "minLength": 1,
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "parameter_index": {
+              "description": "Inspected zero-based parameter index.",
+              "maximum": 255,
+              "minimum": 0,
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "parameter_name": {
+              "description": "Exact inspected parameter name.",
+              "maxLength": 512,
+              "minLength": 1,
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "match_name",
+            "parameter_index",
+            "parameter_name"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "end_ticks": {
+          "description": "Exact expected exclusive timeline end ticks.",
+          "pattern": "^-?\\d{1,30}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "in_ticks": {
+          "description": "Exact expected source In ticks.",
+          "pattern": "^-?\\d{1,30}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "node_id": {
+          "description": "Stable CEP node ID.",
+          "maxLength": 512,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "out_ticks": {
+          "description": "Exact expected exclusive source Out ticks.",
+          "pattern": "^-?\\d{1,30}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "project_item_id": {
+          "description": "Expected source project-item node ID.",
+          "maxLength": 512,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "start_ticks": {
+          "description": "Exact expected timeline start ticks.",
+          "pattern": "^-?\\d{1,30}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "track_index": {
+          "description": "Expected zero-based track index; identity still checked.",
+          "maximum": 255,
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "track_type": {
+          "description": "Expected media track group.",
+          "enum": [
+            "video",
+            "audio"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "node_id",
+        "track_type",
+        "track_index"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "project_document_id": {
+      "description": "Exact Premiere project document ID observed during review.",
+      "maxLength": 512,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "sequence_id": {
+      "description": "Stable expected active sequence ID.",
+      "maxLength": 512,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source_item": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Reviewed source identity for a source-only operation.",
+      "properties": {
+        "media_path": {
+          "description": "Optional exact source-media path.",
+          "maxLength": 4096,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "node_id": {
+          "description": "Exact project-item node ID.",
+          "maxLength": 512,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "node_id"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "backend"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / expected_project_path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "maxLength": 4096,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / receipt

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.18.6Sep 30, 2026

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."

Addedv1.14.9Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description nonetheless adds real value by stating that recipes are 'declarative previews' that 'cannot execute arbitrary tools or scripts', which is a genuine trust boundary an agent needs. It says nothing, however, about the containment rules for recipe_file, the approved_workspace_path requirement, or why a search tool carries an idempotency_key.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value constraint (recipes cannot execute arbitrary tools or scripts) is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Nothing repeats the title verbatim for its own sake.

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 annotations covering safety, a 100%-described schema, an output schema, and a short declarative-substitution tool, the description is close to sufficient. The main residual gap is that it does not tell the agent what a found recipe is for or which sibling to call next, which matters given the many overlapping planning/preview siblings.

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 every parameter (including the nested expected_cep_target and the idempotency_key retry semantics) is already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only loosely hints at recipe_file via 'explicitly supplied workspace-local' and adds no syntax or pairing details beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Search ... workflow recipes') and scopes the search to two sources: audited built-ins and explicitly supplied workspace-local recipes. That is enough to distinguish it from execution/planning siblings, but it never names the obviously adjacent tool preview_workflow_recipe, so an agent must infer the search-then-preview relationship itself.

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 only implied by the phrase 'explicitly supplied workspace-local', which suggests you pass recipe_file when you have your own recipe. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no routing to preview_workflow_recipe or plan_cross_app_workflow, which are the natural follow-on steps after a search hit.

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

Deploy Server