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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Extract Selection

extract_selection

Cut out the sequence in/out range on targeted unlocked tracks, close the gap, and verify each track lost exactly that range.

Instructions

EXPERIMENTAL (undocumented QE DOM: extract()). Extract (remove and close the gap) the content between the sequence in/out points on every targeted, unlocked track, then verify each targeted track lost exactly the range and its later clips moved up by the range. Marks that Premiere stored just off a frame are first re-written on that exact frame through QE (marksRewritten). Requires sequence in/out marks that do not span the whole sequence. Premiere can also change untargeted tracks (for example the linked audio of targeted video, or sync-locked tracks); those are not verified but are listed in otherTracksChanged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "extract_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description explicitly says the tool will 'remove' content, close the gap, and make targeted tracks lose exactly the range, which is a destructive edit. The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, so the description directly contradicts the annotation and per the rubric receives 1 despite otherwise rich behavioral detail.

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 description is front-loaded with the experimental QE DOM warning, then operation, verification, prerequisite, and side-effect caveat. It is dense but every sentence adds material information; minor jargon like marksRewritten is acceptable in context.

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 complex mutation, the description covers the operation scope, verification behavior, prerequisite marks, and unverified side effects on other tracks. With a rich input schema and output schema present, the remaining omissions around parameters are reasonably covered elsewhere.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, including detailed nested guard objects and idempotency semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries that burden.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: extract the content between sequence in/out points on targeted unlocked tracks, and explicitly says it removes content and closes the gap. That operational distinction is clear enough to separate it from sibling selection/edit tools without opening schemas.

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?

It gives a prerequisite that sequence in/out marks must exist and must not span the whole sequence, which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives such as lift_selection, nor does it name exclusion cases beyond the mark precondition.

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