premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Sequence From Clips

create_sequence_from_clips

Create a new sequence from ordered project items and verify its name, identity, and clip placements against the requested source items.

Instructions

Create a new sequence from project items, then verify its registered identity, name and source-item placements. clipCount reports observed track items; requestedClipCount reports requested source items.

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>",
      "item_ids": "<item_ids>"
    },
    "name": "create_sequence_from_clips"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the new sequence
`item_ids`	Yes	Array of project item names or node IDs to include in order
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real value: creation is followed by a verification pass over registered identity, name, and source-item placements, and it explains that clipCount vs requestedClipCount can diverge. That tells the agent the call can produce a partially-matching result worth checking, which annotations alone would not reveal. It stops short of saying whether a mismatch means rollback or an error.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the second sentence devoted entirely to interpreting the reported counts. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 partially clarified and an output schema exists, so the description need not document the response shape. However, for a mutation tool with nested CEP-guard parameters and an idempotency contract, it omits what happens on verification failure and whether any cleanup occurs, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 carries the meaning of name, item_ids, idempotency_key, and expected_cep_target; the description only echoes 'project items' for item_ids. It adds no guidance on ordering, duplicate entries, or whether the CEP guard is needed for this call, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource (create a new sequence) plus the material it is built from (project items), and adds that identity/name/placement are verified afterwards. It does not name or contrast with the nearby alternatives such as create_sequence or create_sequence_from_preset, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an open project, valid item IDs), and no mention of the sibling sequence-creation tools. Only an implicit 'you have a list of items, so assemble a sequence' reading is available.

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

Deploy Server