premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Apply Scene Review Workflow

apply_scene_review_workflow

Destructive

Applies an approved source-scene preview to create reviewed markers and audio subclips in a verified bin, with source/project guards and no changes on unverified receipts.

Instructions

Consume approved source-scene preview once, create reviewed source markers and/or subclips requesting audio in a new verified bin using existing typed CEP tools. Same-command source/project guards refuse relinks or project changes. Stops on failed/unverified receipt and retains bounded partial results; no rollback or false-positive correctness claim.

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_scene_review_workflow"
  }
}

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 preview_scene_review_workflow token.
`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?

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses the guard behavior (same-command source/project checks that refuse relinks or project changes), the failure contract (stops on failed/unverified receipt, retains bounded partial results, no rollback), and an explicit disclaimer against false-positive correctness claims. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent needs before a destructive call; permissions or rate-limit behavior are the only notable omissions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then guards, then failure semantics — a sensible order with no filler. Some phrasing is dense internal jargon ("typed CEP tools", "bounded partial results"), but each sentence carries distinct 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 destructive, multi-step workflow tool with a rich nested schema and an output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: the one-shot preview consumption, guard enforcement, and no-rollback partial-failure behavior. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema; the only gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance versus sibling apply tools.

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 schema already documents confirmation_token, idempotency_key, expected_cep_target, and expected_project_path in detail. The description adds only a general notion of "same-command source/project guards" without mapping it to the specific guard parameters, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb chain ("Consume approved source-scene preview once, create reviewed source markers and/or subclips ... in a new verified bin") and names the produced artifacts, so the resource and effect are identifiable. It does not explicitly name the producing sibling (preview_scene_review_workflow) or contrast itself with the other apply_* tools, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

"Consume approved source-scene preview once" implies the prerequisite flow (preview first, then apply) and the single-use token reinforces that, but the description never states when to choose this over apply_edit_plan, apply_spot_workflow_plan, or the marker export tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server