premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Project Item

delete_project_item

Destructive

Deletes a project panel item (bin, sequence, clip, or file) and verifies it is gone; blocks deletion when the item is used on a timeline unless removal is confirmed.

Instructions

Delete a project item (bin, sequence, clip or file) from the project panel and read back that it is gone. organize_project_items_uxp with action 'remove' (authenticated UXP bridge) is the preferred, documented route. This CEP fallback deletes a clip or file by moving it into a temporary bin and deleting that bin, which cannot be undone here. Deleting media also removes its clips from every sequence, so an item (or a bin whose contents are) used on a timeline is refused unless confirm_remove_from_sequences is true. A sequence nested on another timeline is refused the same way.

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": "delete_project_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item_id`	Yes	Node ID or name of the project item to delete, or the sequence ID of a sequence
`allow_offline`	No	Also delete offline (missing-media) items. Premiere can open a modal while deleting missing media, and the modal blocks every later bridge command until it is closed in Premiere, so these are refused by default (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 the item (or 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value beyond that: irreversibility, the temp-bin mechanism, cascade removal of clips from every sequence, and the refusal conditions tied to confirm_remove_from_sequences and nested sequences. It does not cover the idempotency or expected_cep_target guard behavior, which the schema carries instead.

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 the preferred alternative, then the caveats. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct constraint; the nested-sequence sentence is slightly redundant with the preceding one but not wasteful.

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, six-parameter tool with nested guard objects and an output schema, the description covers the decision-relevant behavior: routing, irreversibility, cascade effects, and refusal conditions. Return values are handled by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 adds meaning the schema does not: it explains why confirm_remove_from_sequences exists (timeline usage is refused by default) and why allow_offline defaults to false (a Premiere modal blocks later bridge commands). That is genuine semantic context beyond the field descriptions.

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 project item (bin, sequence, clip or file) from the project panel') and adds the post-condition 'read back that it is gone', which distinguishes it from a fire-and-forget delete.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the preferred alternative (organize_project_items_uxp with action 'remove') and frames itself as the CEP fallback, so an agent knows exactly when to pick this tool versus the documented route.

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

Deploy Server