premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Batch Add Transitions

batch_add_transitions

Destructive

Adds the same video transition to every eligible cut point on a Premiere Pro video track and reports readback for each cut.

Instructions

EXPERIMENTAL (undocumented QE DOM): Add the same video transition at each eligible cut point on a track and report per-cut readback.

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": {
      "transition_name": "<transition_name>"
    },
    "name": "batch_add_transitions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`track_index`	No	Video track index (0-based, default: 0)
`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.
`transition_name`	Yes	Name of the transition (e.g., 'Cross Dissolve')
`duration_seconds`	No	Duration of each transition in seconds (default: 1.0)
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: it is flagged EXPERIMENTAL and built on an undocumented QE DOM, which warns of instability, and it discloses a per-cut readback. However, it does not explain what 'eligible' means, what happens at cut points that already have a transition (the destructiveHint=true risk), or how partial failures are reported, leaving the destructive profile underexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the EXPERIMENTAL warning before the action, with no filler. The trailing 'report per-cut readback' clause borders on redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and informative.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and parameters are fully documented in-schema, so the essentials are present. For a destructive, non-idempotent batch mutation on an undocumented API, the description omits failure/partial-success behavior and what happens to pre-existing transitions at affected cut points.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters including idempotency_key and the CEP identity guard are documented in-schema; baseline is 3. The description only implicitly maps to transition_name and track_index ('same video transition ... on a track') and adds no semantics the schema lacks, such as how duration interacts with adjacent cuts.

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 ('Add the same video transition') plus exact scope ('at each eligible cut point on a track') and an outcome ('report per-cut readback'). The 'batch' framing and 'each eligible cut point' wording distinguish it from single-cut siblings like add_transition, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The batch context ('add the same transition at each eligible cut point') implies when to use this over a single-transition tool, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. 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