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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Apply Effect

apply_effect

Applies a named video effect to a specified clip in an open Premiere Pro project using the clip node ID and effect name.

Instructions

Apply a video effect to a clip. Experimental QE DOM catalog lookup includes an exact-name probe when enumeration is empty. A component-list readback does not verify rendered pixels.

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>",
      "effect_name": "<effect_name>"
    },
    "name": "apply_effect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip to apply the effect to
effect_nameYesName of the effect (e.g., 'Gaussian Blur', 'Lumetri Color')
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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful caveats beyond that: the QE DOM catalog lookup is experimental and falls back to an exact-name probe when enumeration returns empty, and a component-list readback does not prove rendered pixels — an important limit on verifying success. It still omits what happens on lookup failure and what the returned outcome looks like, and the jargon is hard to parse.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The follow-up sentences are dense with domain jargon but each carries a distinct caveat rather than restating the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter mutation with nested identity guards and an output schema, the description covers the action and two verification caveats but leaves prerequisites, failure modes, and the relationship to sibling effect tools unexplained. The rich schema compensates for much of the parameter detail, so the gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 all five parameters including idempotency_key and expected_cep_target are already documented in detail. The description only indirectly adds meaning by noting an exact-name probe, hinting that effect_name resolution is name-exact, but it says nothing about node_id, the identity guard, or retry semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Apply a video effect to a clip"), which distinguishes it from the audio counterpart apply_audio_effect by media type. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly or describing batch/stacking variants, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus apply_audio_effect, batch_apply_effect, apply_stacked_camera_edit, or apply_lut, and no stated prerequisites such as whether a clip must be selected or an effect must exist in the catalog. The agent must infer all of this from the name and schema.

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