premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Bin

create_bin

Create a new bin in the Premiere Pro project panel, optionally nested inside an existing parent bin, then verify the folder sits as its direct child before reporting success.

Instructions

Create a new bin (folder) in the project panel, optionally nested inside an existing bin. Reads the project back: verified is true only when the new bin is a direct child of the requested parent; otherwise the result reports outcome committed_unverified.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_bin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of the new bin
`parent_bin`	No	Optional parent bin node ID, slash-separated bin path, or exact bin name. Alias of parent_bin_id that also accepts a path or name.
`parent_bin_id`	No	Optional node ID of the existing parent bin (searched recursively through nested bins). Creates in the project root if both parent_bin_id and parent_bin are omitted.
`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.
`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?

The description adds real behavioral information beyond the annotations: it discloses a post-write read-back and explains that 'verified' is true only when the new bin is a direct child of the requested parent, otherwise the outcome is 'committed_unverified'. That non-obvious partial-success semantics is exactly what annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) cannot convey.

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: the core action first, then the verification contract. It is tight and easy to scan, though the second sentence could be slightly more economical in phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional, yet the description still explains the verified/committed_unverified distinction, which is the most important outcome nuance. The heavy guard parameters (expected_cep_target, expected_project_path) are left entirely to the schema, a minor gap for a 6-parameter mutation tool.

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 name, parent_bin, parent_bin_id, the idempotency key and the guard objects in depth. The description only restates the optional-nesting idea and adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail (e.g. how parent_bin resolves against parent_bin_id) beyond the schema, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new bin (folder) in the project panel') and clarifies the parent-binning scope. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling create_smart_bin, so an agent must infer that distinction elsewhere.

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?

It conveys that nesting is optional and implies root creation when no parent is given, which gives an agent enough to act. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions create_smart_bin, so the routing decision between the two bin-creation tools is left unresolved.

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

Deploy Server