premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Apply Extended Edit Plan

apply_extended_edit_plan

Destructive

Applies reviewed compound Premiere Pro edit plan with a single-use token, runs guarded typed commands in order, and stops at the first failed or unverified receipt, reporting completed/unknown steps.

Instructions

Consume a reviewed compound CEP token once and invoke only its existing typed tools with same-command project/sequence/clip/effect guards. Stops at first failed or unverified receipt, reports completed and unknown steps, and never retries or rolls back partial work. Rendering and audible synchronization remain separate evidence.

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": {
      "confirmation_token": "<confirmation_token>"
    },
    "name": "apply_extended_edit_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional 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_token`	Yes	Single-use token from preview_extended_edit_plan.
`expected_cep_target`	No	Optional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
`expected_project_path`	No	Optional 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

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
`tool`	Yes	The registered MCP tool name.
`error`	No	Failure detail when ok is false.
`receipt`	No	Versioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
`idempotency`	No	Present 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.

First observedv1.30.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say destructive=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real behavior: it stops at the first failed or unverified receipt, reports completed and unknown steps, and never retries or rolls back partial work. That is exactly the failure-mode information an agent needs before a destructive call, though terms like 'receipt' and 'unverified' are left undefined.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action, then failure/atomicity semantics, then a scoping note. The closing line about rendering and audible synchronization being 'separate evidence' is cryptic and could be cut or clarified, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 destructive, non-idempotent executor with a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers atomicity, stop-on-failure, no-retry/no-rollback, and single-use token semantics. It stops short of telling the agent what to do after a partial failure (e.g., re-preview), which is the one operational gap.

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% and the parameters (idempotency_key, confirmation_token, expected_cep_target, expected_project_path) are already documented at length in the schema. The description adds only the notion that project/sequence/clip/effect guards are checked per generated command, which the schema largely states already; baseline 3 applies.

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 description names a specific action (consume a reviewed compound CEP token once and invoke only its existing typed tools) and states the scope of the guards applied. It is clearly a mutating executor distinct from a preview step, but it leans on internal jargon ('compound CEP token', 'typed tools', 'receipt') rather than naming the sibling that produces the token.

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 by 'reviewed' plus the confirmation_token schema note pointing to preview_extended_edit_plan, and the single-use nature tells the agent it cannot be re-invoked casually. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many other apply_* siblings (apply_edit_plan, apply_stacked_camera_edit, apply_spot_workflow_plan) or states the precondition that a preview must be run first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server