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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Apply Edit Plan

apply_edit_plan

Applies a previewed compound edit to a Premiere sequence after revalidating project, sequence, and target identities with the confirmation token; changed targets require a fresh preview.

Instructions

Apply a previously previewed compound edit after revalidating stable project, sequence and target identities before activation or mutation. Requires the edit capability and exact preview confirmation token; changed targets require a fresh preview. Ripple plans require the reviewed sequence to be active for the read-only QE sync-lock preflight.

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": {
      "plan": "<plan>",
      "confirmation_token": "<confirmation_token>"
    },
    "name": "apply_edit_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesAn edit plan: { sequence_id?, operations: [...] } with up to 100 insert_clip and remove_clip operations. Operations run in order, and each one's times refer to the timeline as the operations before it left it.
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.
confirmation_tokenYesExact token returned by preview_edit_plan
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: identities are revalidated before activation or mutation, changed targets force a re-preview, and ripple plans run a read-only sync-lock preflight. It does not describe atomicity or what happens when an operation mid-plan fails, which is the notable remaining gap for a multi-operation mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then preconditions, then the ripple-specific constraint. No sentence restates a sibling name or repeats schema content, and the density is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 mutation tool with a deeply nested schema and an output schema, the description covers authorization, sequencing relative to preview, staleness handling, and the ripple precondition. It leaves partial-failure and rollback behavior unstated, which an agent would need before committing a large compound plan.

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 carries the per-operation field semantics and the idempotency key contract, making 3 the baseline. The description adds some meaning by tying confirmation_token to preview_edit_plan and by framing the plan as an ordered compound edit whose times shift as prior operations land. It does not explain expected_cep_target or expected_project_path, the guard parameters it actually revalidates against.

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: applies a previously previewed compound edit, with the revalidation step named. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the preview tools by requiring a confirmation token from a prior preview, so an agent can place it in the preview→apply flow. It does not explicitly separate itself from the similarly named apply_extended_edit_plan, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete preconditions: edit capability required, exact preview confirmation token required, a fresh preview when targets change, and an active reviewed sequence for ripple plans. These are real when-to-use constraints rather than generic filler. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead (e.g. the extended or stacked-camera apply variants) when the plan is not a basic insert/remove plan.

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