Skip to main content
Glama

Add Markers Batch

add_markers_batch

Adds up to 200 sequence or clip markers in one validated batch, checking every time and range before writing, then reading back each created marker to fail closed on any mismatch.

Instructions

Add up to 200 sequence or clip markers in one verified CEP request (beat grids, chapters, silence reviews, client notes). Every marker is validated and range-checked before the first write; the tool reads back the marker count and each created marker's time and fails closed on any mismatch. EXPERIMENTAL QE: records an observed marker boundary for guarded Undo/Redo; crossing it is refused by default, and unreadable history records unknown protection. This boundary does not verify native marker reversal. Marker start and end storage are compared at exact integer ticks; unsupported time writes remain unverified with the created marker identity when available.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "markers": "<markers>"
    },
    "name": "add_markers_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
markersYesMarkers to create, in any order; they are sorted by time before writing.
node_idNoOptional timeline clip node ID; markers are then created on that clip instead of the sequence (requires the active sequence). Premiere 25.2.3 timeline clips have no marker collection, so this refuses there and names the source time to use with add_marker_to_project_item.
sequence_idNoSequence ID or name. Defaults to the active sequence.
idempotency_keyNoOptional 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 the HTTP server process when Streamable HTTP is stateless per request) and held in memory only (200 keys, 1 hour); it does not survive a restart or reconnect. Read-only invocations are never deduplicated.
allow_beyond_endNoAllow marker times past the sequence end instead of rejecting the whole batch (default false).
expected_cep_targetNoOptional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
expected_project_pathNoOptional 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.
skip_existing_within_framesNoWhen above 0, skip a marker if an existing marker already sits within this many frames of it (default 0 = never skip).

Output 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.
receiptNoVersioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
idempotencyNoPresent 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.

  1. First observedv1.30.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) by disclosing pre-write validation and range checking, post-write read-back of count and per-marker time, fail-closed behavior on mismatch, and refusal-by-default when crossing an observed undo/redo boundary. It is also honest about its own limits: 'does not verify native marker reversal' and 'unsupported time writes remain unverified', and it explains that unreadable history records unknown protection.

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 purpose and batch size are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by verification behavior and then the undo-guard caveat, which is a sensible ordering. The trailing paragraph is dense with internal jargon ('EXPERIMENTAL QE', 'observed marker boundary', 'exact integer ticks') that costs comprehension, but every sentence carries distinct information with little redundancy.

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?

Given a single required parameter, seven optional ones, an output schema, and non-destructive annotations, the description covers the essential contract: what is written, what is verified, and how failures behave. The main remaining gap is routing against sibling marker tools, which the description never addresses.

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 all eight parameters, including the batch size cap and time/duration semantics. The description reinforces the 'up to 200' cap and the validated/range-checked nature of each marker, but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource (add markers), the scope (up to 200, sequence or clip, one CEP request), and the concrete use cases (beat grids, chapters, silence reviews, client notes). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the single-marker sibling 'add_marker'; the clip-vs-sequence distinction from 'add_marker_to_project_item' only appears in the schema's node_id description, so some differentiation is left to structured fields.

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 rather than stated: the parenthetical examples suggest bulk marker creation scenarios, and 'crossing it is refused by default' hints at the guarded-undo precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of guidance against 'add_marker' for a single marker or 'plan_chapter_markers'/'plan_silence_review_markers' for planning workflows.

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