Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
premiere-pro-mcp

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Batch Rename Clips

batch_rename_clips
Destructive

Rename multiple timeline clips on a chosen video or audio track using a pattern with sequential numbering; optionally apply changes only to selected clips.

Instructions

Rename multiple clips on the timeline using a pattern. Supports sequential numbering.

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": {
      "pattern": "<pattern>",
      "track_type": "<track_type>",
      "track_index": "<track_index>"
    },
    "name": "batch_rename_clips"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patternYesName pattern. Use {n} for a sequential number, ## for a zero-padded two-digit sequence number, and {name} for the original name (e.g., 'Scene_##', '{name}_v2')
track_typeYesTrack type to rename clips on
track_indexYesTrack index (0-based)
start_numberNoStarting number for {n} placeholder (default: 1)
selected_onlyNoOnly rename selected clips (default: false, renames all on 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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is an unsafe mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never says existing clip names are overwritten irreversibly, that the default renames every clip on the track (selected_only defaults false in the schema), or that idempotency/CEP guards exist. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the bar is lower, so a 3 rather than lower.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the pattern mechanism is stated up front. It is efficient but so terse that the destructive default scope never gets a sentence of its own.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema documents all eight parameters thoroughly. However, for a destructive batch mutation with nested identity guards and a renames-all-on-track default, the description omits the scope and irreversibility an agent most needs before invoking it.

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%, including the {n}, ##, and {name} placeholder syntax, start_number, selected_only, idempotency_key, and the expected_cep_target guard. The description's mention of patterns and sequential numbering merely echoes what the schema already states, so the 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 (rename) and resource (clips) plus the batching scope and pattern mechanism, which lets an agent tell it apart from the singular rename_clip sibling implied by the catalog. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it does not reach a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing about preferring rename_clip for a single clip, nothing about which tracks or selection state apply. 'Supports sequential numbering' is a capability note, not usage routing.

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