Skip to main content
Glama

Create Subclip

create_subclip

Creates a subclip from a project item using in/out points in seconds, snaps points to media frames, and verifies the stored Premiere range.

Instructions

Create a subclip from a project item with in/out points (seconds from the start of the file, even when the media carries a start timecode). Returns the new item's nodeId and reads its stored range back from Premiere project metadata: outcome verified when each observed in/out point is within half a media frame (or audio sample) of the request, so a whole-frame miss is committed_unverified. Points are snapped to the nearest media frame and sent a quarter frame past it so Premiere stores that frame. A media start timecode is reported as mediaStartSeconds.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "in_seconds": "<in_seconds>",
      "out_seconds": "<out_seconds>"
    },
    "name": "create_subclip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName for the subclip
item_idYesNode ID or name of the source project item, or the sequence ID of a sequence
in_secondsYesIn-point in seconds
out_secondsYesOut-point in seconds
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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write), the description discloses what is returned, how the write is verified against project metadata, the half-frame tolerance rule, the committed_unverified outcome on whole-frame misses, and the quarter-frame over-send trick used to force Premiere to store the intended frame. That is unusually rich operational context for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying unique information with the core purpose front-loaded. It is dense with domain jargon (committed_unverified, media frame, quarter frame past) and could be broken up for readability, but no sentence is padding.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers the mutation, its verification contract, and the frame-snapping behavior. The idempotency_key and expected_cep_target guards are documented thoroughly in the schema, so leaving them to structured fields is reasonable; the main omission is any staging/undo guidance for a write operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema lacks: in_seconds/out_seconds are measured from file start even when media carries a start timecode, and they are snapped to the nearest media frame. The return-side note about mediaStartSeconds further clarifies how timecode offsets surface.

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 subclip from a project item with in/out points' — and immediately clarifies the unit semantics (seconds from the start of the file, regardless of source timecode). It does not differentiate from the sibling create_subsequence, so it stops short of 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the detailed in/out and frame-snapping semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as create_subsequence or create_source_freeze_frame. The agent must infer the situation from the input semantics alone.

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