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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete Track

delete_track
Destructive

Delete a video or audio track from the active sequence and confirm that exact track was removed. Refuses tracks still holding clips unless force=true; caption tracks are not supported.

Instructions

EXPERIMENTAL (undocumented QE DOM: removeVideoTrack/removeAudioTrack). Delete a video or audio track from the active sequence through QE and verify that exactly that track was removed (the remaining tracks keep their clips, custom names and lock/mute state in order). Refuses a track that still holds clips unless force is true. Caption tracks cannot be deleted (no host API); a caption track_type is refused with the manual route.

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": {
      "track_type": "<track_type>",
      "track_index": "<track_index>"
    },
    "name": "delete_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoAlso delete a track that holds clips, removing those clips (default: false)
track_typeYesType of track to delete
track_indexYesIndex of the track to delete (0-based)
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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the undocumented QE dependency, a post-delete verification step, and the guarantee that remaining tracks keep clips, custom names, and lock/mute state in order. What it leaves out is what happens when verification fails (rollback? partial state?) and how the idempotency_key interacts with a destructive retry, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 and dense: stability warning, action, verification promise, then refusal rules. Every sentence carries information, though the long parenthetical and multi-clause verification sentence make it slightly heavy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive path plus verification are well covered. However, for a tool with six parameters including nested identity guards, the description never says what a failed verification does to the sequence, nor how force interacts with the pre-mutation identity checks.

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 genuine meaning: it explains force's exact consequence (removing the clips the track holds), which the schema only hints at, and it clarifies that caption track_type is rejected even though the enum lists only video/audio. The large expected_cep_target/idempotency_key surface is left entirely to 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 video or audio track from the active sequence) and names the exact underlying route (QE removeVideoTrack/removeAudioTrack), which instantly separates it from add_track, delete_sequence, or clip-level deletion tools. The EXPERIMENTAL prefix signals the tool's stability class before anything else.

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-not conditions: a track holding clips is refused unless force=true, and caption tracks cannot be deleted at all. It stops short of pointing at an explicit alternative for the caption case (it only says 'the manual route') or naming a sibling for clear-and-delete workflows, so routing is implied rather than fully enumerated.

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