premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Encode File

encode_file

Submits an external file to Adobe Media Encoder with a preset and output path, using a saved Premiere Pro project; verify the returned job ID in the AME queue or output file.

Instructions

Request an Adobe Media Encoder encode for an external file. Requires a saved project. The returned job ID is an unverified handoff; verify queue presence or the output file independently. Optional start_batch requests processing of every ready AME queue job, including unrelated jobs.

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": {
      "input_path": "<input_path>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>",
      "preset_path": "<preset_path>"
    },
    "name": "encode_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`in_seconds`	No	Optional start time in seconds
`input_path`	Yes	Full path to the input file
`out_seconds`	No	Optional end time in seconds
`output_path`	Yes	Full output file path
`preset_path`	Yes	Path to an AME preset file (.epr)
`start_batch`	No	Opt in to start the entire ready Adobe Media Encoder queue after this handoff, including unrelated jobs. Default false (enqueue only). A successful call does not verify that any render started or completed.
`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.
`remove_on_completion`	No	Remove from queue on completion (default: true)
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that the job ID is an unverified handoff requiring independent verification, and by warning that start_batch will process every ready queue job including unrelated ones. That side-effect warning is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral disclosure that matters for a mutation. Omitting permission/auth requirements keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the verification caveat, then the batch side effect. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information and none repeats the schema verbatim.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with ten parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent cannot get from structure: the saved-project precondition, the untrustworthy job ID, and the batch scope. Given an output schema exists, omitting return-value detail is acceptable; only the lack of permission/backend expectations keeps it below 5.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the schema already documents all ten parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces start_batch's blast radius, but adds nothing about in_seconds/out_seconds, preset_path, expected_cep_target, or idempotency_key semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Request an Adobe Media Encoder encode for an external file' makes clear this hands an arbitrary file to AME rather than encoding a project item, which implicitly separates it from encode_project_item. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating explicit scope boundaries, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The prerequisite 'Requires a saved project' is useful, and 'external file' hints at when this applies versus internal project encoding. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to start_batch_encode despite start_batch overlapping with it, so usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server