premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Apply Stacked Camera Edit

apply_stacked_camera_edit

Destructive

Applies a reviewed stacked-camera edit plan to a newly cloned sequence, verifying track locks, source identity, and enabled states before writing changes.

Instructions

Apply one single-use reviewed ordinary stacked-camera plan to a newly cloned sequence. Reads actual track locks, linked partners, source identity, forward1x speed and nest/reverse state before clone and before writes; unavailable getters refuse. Verifies exact enabled states and master-audio ranges. Sequential partial completion is reported; no rollback or audible sync 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_stacked_camera_edit"
  }
}

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 returned by preview_stacked_camera_edit.
`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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false): it discloses that state (track locks, linked partners, source identity, speed, nest/reverse) is read before clone and before writes, that missing getters cause refusal, that failures can be partially applied sequentially with no rollback, and that no audible sync is claimed. These are exactly the risk details an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Roughly 60 words with preconditions front-loaded and consequences last; every clause carries information. The telegraphic phrasing ('forward1x speed', 'nest/reverse state', 'ordinary') makes some clauses harder to parse than necessary.

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, nested-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers preconditions, refusal behavior, partial-completion semantics, and the absence of rollback. It leaves the exact clone side effect and the meaning of the returned partial-completion report to the output schema, which is acceptable but slightly thin.

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 four parameters (including the deeply nested expected_cep_target and idempotency_key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion that the plan is single-use and pre-verified, without extra parameter-level meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Apply'), a specific resource ('one single-use reviewed ordinary stacked-camera plan'), and the target ('a newly cloned sequence'), which distinguishes it from preview_stacked_camera_edit by requiring a reviewed, single-use plan. The qualifier 'ordinary' and 'stacked-camera plan' are unexplained jargon, so the agent still has to infer what a stacked-camera plan is.

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 rather than stated: 'single-use reviewed' plan plus the confirmation_token schema note signals that preview_stacked_camera_edit must be called first, and 'unavailable getters refuse' implies a precondition check. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named as an alternative, so the agent must reconstruct the workflow.

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

Deploy Server