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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete Marker

delete_marker
Destructive

Deletes a marker at a specified time position, optionally on a clip node, so editors can remove unwanted markers from an open Premiere Pro project.

Instructions

Delete a marker at a specific time position. EXPERIMENTAL (QE DOM): the receipt reports undoStackIndex movement, which does not prove QE can reverse the marker. Every marker attempt protects an engine undo boundary; undoTracked:false means the marker did not observably advance the QE index.

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": {
      "time_seconds": "<time_seconds>"
    },
    "name": "delete_marker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idNoOptional clip node ID (deletes from sequence if omitted). Premiere 25.2.3 timeline clips have no marker collection, so this refuses there.
time_secondsYesTime position of the marker to delete
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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the QE receipt's undoStackIndex is only an experimental signal, and undoTracked:false means the marker did not observably advance the QE index. That is important caveat behavior for a destructive operation, though it is dense with unexplained QE terminology.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. The following experimental caveat is relevant but jargon-heavy; it earns its place for a destructive tool, yet could be clearer about what the agent should practically infer from undoTracked:false.

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?

The tool has a complex schema with nested guards, an output schema, and destructive semantics. The description covers the core action and a meaningful undo caveat, and the schema handles parameter detail and return values. However, it does not explain when to choose clip-level versus sequence-level deletion, nor does it summarize the practical consequence of the experimental undo behavior.

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 all five parameters are already richly documented, including idempotency_key, expected_cep_target, and expected_project_path. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'specific time position', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a marker at a specific time position.' An agent can distinguish this from add_marker and update_marker, though the description does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast their behavior.

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 guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The schema notes that node_id omits sequence-level deletion and that Premiere 25.2.3 timeline clips refuse marker deletion, but the description itself does not route the agent between sequence markers and clip markers.

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