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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List Clip Effects

list_clip_effects
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists a clip's standard DOM effects and components with their properties and current values, helping inspect applied effects; QE-only effects may not appear, so verify in Effect Controls.

Instructions

List effects/components exposed by the clip's standard DOM collection, with properties and current values. Some hosts omit QE-applied effects from this collection; absence here does not prove an effect is absent. get_effect_properties uses the same collection. Inspect Premiere's Effect Controls UI when complete QE effect presence must be confirmed.

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_clip_effects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip to inspect
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: some hosts omit QE-applied effects, and absence here does not prove an effect is absent. This is exactly the kind of reliability caveat an agent needs before acting.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the limitation, the sibling comparison, and the alternative. No wasted words; the structure moves from what it does to how to interpret the result.

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?

Given the nested schema, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's main limitation and points to the UI alternative when completeness is required. Parameter and return-value details are appropriately left to the structured fields.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in detail. The description does not add any parameter-specific syntax, format, or usage guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('effects/components exposed by the clip's standard DOM collection') and clarifies the scope with 'with properties and current values.' It also distinguishes the tool from UI inspection and notes the shared collection with get_effect_properties, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

The description provides a clear context for use and an explicit alternative: 'Inspect Premiere's Effect Controls UI when complete QE effect presence must be confirmed.' It also warns that absence here is not proof of absence, which guides when not to rely on this tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer get_effect_properties, which uses the same collection.

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