premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Detect Scene Edits

detect_scene_edits

Detects scene edits in a Premiere Pro selection and materializes them as cuts, markers, or subclips after confirmation via the authenticated UXP bridge.

Instructions

Safe scene-edit facade. It uses the authenticated Premiere UXP bridge when connected and explicitly confirmed; CEP fallback is intentionally withheld because synchronous scene detection can block the panel.

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": {
      "mode": "<mode>",
      "confirm_non_undoable": "<confirm_non_undoable>"
    },
    "name": "detect_scene_edits"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	How Premiere should materialize detected edits on the current native selection.
`operation_id`	No	Optional idempotency key sent to the UXP bridge.
`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.
`confirm_non_undoable`	Yes	Must be true because the host operation mutates the project and is not claimed undoable.
`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.

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it adds real behavioral context: an authenticated UXP bridge is required, an explicit confirmation is required, and CEP is deliberately unavailable because synchronous detection can block the panel. However, it omits the consequence of the operation (a project mutation that the schema says is not claimed undoable) and what happens on failure, so the "Safe" framing is thinner than the underlying behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the backend-routing constraint is front-loaded ahead of the CEP rationale. The phrasing is jargon-dense ("authenticated Premiere UXP bridge", "facade") but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested six-parameter schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the backend/confirmation story but leaves the mutation's consequences and the choice among sibling detection tools unaddressed. The rich schema and output schema carry much of the load, making this adequate rather than complete.

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% and the nested expected_cep_target/idempotency_key objects are documented in detail in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning about mode, confirm_non_undoable, or the idempotency key, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description calls itself a "safe scene-edit facade" and mentions "synchronous scene detection," which hints at detecting scene edits, but it never states a specific verb+resource pair such as "detects scene changes and materializes them as cuts/markers/subclips." The concrete action is only recoverable from the schema's mode enum, and nothing distinguishes this tool from siblings like detect_source_scene_changes or scene_edit_detection.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the several scene-detection siblings (detect_source_scene_changes, plan_scene_segments, preview_scene_review_workflow). The only exclusion stated is a capability one — CEP fallback withheld — which tells the agent what the tool cannot do, not when to use it.

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

Deploy Server