Skip to main content
Glama

Batch Apply Effect

batch_apply_effect
Destructive

Apply a single audio or video effect to selected clips, a specific track, or all compatible clips, with preflight checks and component-count readback to verify each target.

Instructions

Apply one audio or video effect to compatible selected clips, a compatible track, or all compatible clips. Every target is preflighted and then checked by component-count 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": {
      "effect_name": "<effect_name>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "batch_apply_effect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesWhich clips to apply to: selected clips, all on a track, or all in sequence
track_typeNoTrack type (required when target is 'track')
effect_nameYesDisplay name of the effect to apply (e.g., 'Gaussian Blur', 'Lumetri Color')
track_indexNoTrack index (required when target is 'track')
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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds that every target is preflighted and then checked by component-count readback, which is useful behavioral context for a mutation tool. However, it does not explain partial-failure behavior, atomicity, or what happens when some targets are incompatible, and it leaves destructive semantics to the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. The second sentence adds verification context without bloating the definition.

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?

The rich input schema, output schema, and annotations cover much of what an agent needs, and the description covers purpose plus preflight/readback. For a complex destructive batch mutation with nested guard parameters, however, it omits important behavioral details such as whether the operation is atomic or how incompatible targets affect the overall outcome.

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 the schema already documents the target, track_type, track_index, effect_name, idempotency_key, expected_cep_target, and expected_project_path parameters in detail. The description reinforces the target scope and the single-effect constraint but adds little 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 states a specific verb and resource: apply one audio or video effect to selected clips, a track, or all compatible clips. It clearly conveys a batch-style effect application operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling effect tools such as apply_effect or apply_audio_effect.

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 description implies usage through the three target scopes: selected clips, a track, or all compatible clips. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over single-effect or audio/video-specific siblings, nor does it state when this tool should not be used.

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