premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Open Extension

open_extension

Opens an installed CEP extension panel in Premiere Pro using its extension ID; verify the panel appears because CEP cannot confirm visibility.

Instructions

Open an installed CEP extension panel in Premiere Pro by its extension id (see list_extensions). CEP has no panel-visibility getter, so success is committed_unverified: check the panel in Premiere. Another extension cannot be closed from here. CEP connector only.

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": {
      "extension_id": "<extension_id>"
    },
    "name": "open_extension"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`params`	No	Optional startup parameters passed to the extension; usually omitted
`extension_id`	Yes	Extension id from list_extensions, for example com.example.panel
`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.
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the panel-visibility gap means success is reported as committed_unverified and must be checked visually in Premiere, and the tool is restricted to the CEP connector. It does not cover the optional identity guards or the idempotency key, but the core behavioral caveat is disclosed.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the verification caveat, then the boundary. No filler; each sentence carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and a fully described input schema, the description supplies the critical verification caveat and connector restriction. The only gap is silence on the optional expected_cep_target/expected_project_path preconditions, which the schema documents thoroughly, so the omission is acceptable.

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 all five parameters (including the nested expected_cep_target guard and idempotency_key) are already documented. The description only adds that extension_id comes from list_extensions; it says nothing about params or the expected_* guards, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Open an installed CEP extension panel in Premiere Pro by its extension id') and names its lookup companion (list_extensions), so an agent can distinguish it from the extension-listing and file/project opening siblings without reading schemas.

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 the precondition (requires an installed extension id obtained from list_extensions) and a scope boundary ('another extension cannot be closed from here', 'CEP connector only'). It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing statement, but the context is clear enough to select it correctly.

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

Deploy Server