Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
premiere-pro-mcp

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Add To Timeline Batch

add_to_timeline_batch

Insert up to 32 project items into a Premiere timeline in one validated insert-edit CEP batch, preflight items and tracks, then verify placements and report changed positions.

Instructions

Insert up to 32 project items with insert-edit semantics in one validated CEP request. Experimental QE sync-lock handling may ripple or split earlier placements. The tool preflights items and tracks, then verifies every placement again in the final sequence; changed placements return committed_unverified with their observed final positions.

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": {
      "clips": "<clips>"
    },
    "name": "add_to_timeline_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clipsYesOrdered placements. They use the same insert-edit semantics as add_to_timeline; later placements must not share a target video-track start time.
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.
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.

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world; the description goes beyond by disclosing the 32-item cap, insert-edit semantics, experimental QE sync-lock ripple/split risk to earlier placements, preflight-plus-final-verification behavior, and the committed_unverified outcome with observed final positions. The remaining gap is that it does not state what a partial failure looks like or whether earlier placements are rolled back.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cap, then the risk, then the verification and outcome. Slightly jargon-heavy ('QE sync-lock', 'committed_unverified') but each sentence 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?

For a complex nested-schema mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers scale limits, the semantic model, the risk profile, and the verification failure mode. It leaves preconditions such as an active sequence requirement and idempotency to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in depth, including idempotency-key semantics and the expected_cep_target guards. The description adds only the item cap and ordering constraint, which the schema's clips description also 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?

States a specific verb and resource: insert up to 32 project items in one validated CEP request with insert-edit semantics. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular add_to_timeline via the batch/32-item framing, though the description text itself never names the sibling as the alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance in the description. It explains mechanics (preflight, verify) and flags experimental risk, but never says when a caller should pick this over add_to_timeline, add_markers_batch, or predict_timeline_edit.

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