premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Bin

delete_bin

Destructive

Delete a bin and everything inside it from the Premiere Pro project panel, verifying it is gone. Use it to clear unused folders; bins with clips used on a timeline or offline media are refused unless confirmed.

Instructions

Delete a bin (folder) and everything inside it from the project panel, and read back that it is gone. Deleting a bin also removes its media's clips from every sequence and deletes sequences stored in the bin, so a bin whose contents are used on a timeline — including a Sequences bin whose media lives elsewhere — is refused unless confirm_remove_from_sequences is true; the refusal lists the sequences and tracks (see find_item_usages). Bins holding offline media are refused unless allow_offline is true.

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": {
      "bin_id": "<bin_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_bin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bin_id`	Yes	Name or node ID of the bin to delete
`allow_offline`	No	Also delete a bin that holds offline (missing-media) items. Premiere can open a modal while deleting missing media, which blocks every later bridge command until it is closed (default: false).
`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.
`confirm_remove_from_sequences`	No	Delete even when something inside the bin is used in a sequence, which also removes those timeline clips (default: false).

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description discloses the actual blast radius — clips removed from every sequence, sequences stored in the bin destroyed, the edge case of a Sequences bin whose media lives elsewhere — and that refusals enumerate offending sequences and tracks. That is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and cascade, then the two gating rules. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the em-dash aside about Sequences bins takes two readings to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, cascading tool with a nested guard schema and an output schema, the description covers the action, the cascade, the refusal paths, the override flags, and a diagnostic sibling. Return values need no explanation because an output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic linkage the schema does not: which refusal each boolean overrides and that the refusal response lists sequences/tracks. It says nothing about idempotency_key or expected_cep_target, though those are fully self-documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a bin (folder) and everything inside it from the project panel') plus the post-condition read-back, which distinguishes it from delete_project_item, delete_multiple_project_items and delete_sequence in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete when-it-is-refused conditions and names the exact flags (confirm_remove_from_sequences, allow_offline) needed to override each refusal, and points to find_item_usages for inspecting impact. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with delete_project_item for deleting individual items, so 4 rather than 5.

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

Deploy Server