Skip to main content
Glama
leancoderkavy

Premiere Pro MCP Server

by leancoderkavy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Split Clip

split_clip

Split every clip on one video or audio track at a specified timeline time, then verify both resulting boundaries.

Instructions

EXPERIMENTAL (undocumented QE DOM): Split every clip on one track that spans a timeline time, then verify both resulting boundaries. Effect-keyframe redistribution remains unverified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_typeNoTrack type (default: video)
track_indexNoTrack index (0-based, default: 0)
time_secondsYesTimeline time in seconds where clips on the selected track will split

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 changedv1.14.9
    • addedInput schema / properties / time_seconds / minimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / track_index / minimum
      Added value: +0
  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. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.11.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / time_seconds / description
      Previous value: -"Time position in seconds where to split"New value: +"Timeline time in seconds where clips on the selected track will split"
    • changedInput schema / properties / track_index / description
      Previous value: -"Track index (0-based)"New value: +"Track index (0-based, default: 0)"
  5. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  6. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them: it flags EXPERIMENTAL/undocumented QE DOM and discloses that effect-keyframe redistribution is unverified, which is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before mutating a timeline.

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, front-loading the EXPERIMENTAL warning before the operation and its verification caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description covers risk and scope well. It is slightly thin on what 'verify both resulting boundaries' actually entails, but overall adequate for this operation.

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 track_type, track_index, and time_seconds are already documented. The description adds only the notion of 'one track' and 'a timeline time', not new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Split) plus precise scope (every clip on one track that spans a timeline time), and adds a verification step. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like razor_all_tracks, trim_clip, or split-style edits.

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?

The scope ('one track that spans a timeline time') implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., razor_all_tracks, trim_clip). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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