premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Overwrite From Source

overwrite_from_source

Overwrites the Source Monitor clip at the playhead on requested video and audio tracks, replacing existing clips and verifying every source stream lands correctly.

Instructions

Overwrite the clip from the Source Monitor at the playhead position (overwrite edit — replaces existing clips) and verify a new placement on the requested tracks. Every video/audio stream the Source Monitor item actually has must land on those tracks; a picture-only or sound-only placement is committed_unverified, not verified. Video-only and audio-only items overwrite only the receiving track, so Sequence.overwriteClip cannot smash V0 or A0 for the unused kind.

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": "overwrite_from_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`audio_track_index`	No	Target audio track index (default: 0)
`video_track_index`	No	Target video track index (default: 0)
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real behavior: post-edit placement verification, the fact that incomplete stream placement yields 'committed_unverified' rather than 'verified', and that video/audio-only items only touch the receiving track. It does not discuss undo/permissions, and 'replaces existing clips' sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, though an overwrite edit is typically reversible in Premiere so this is not a true contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its replacement semantics before the verification rules. Most of it earns its place, though the tail clause 'Sequence.overwriteClip cannot smash V0 or A0 for the unused kind' is jargon-heavy and takes a re-read to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the input schema already documents the idempotency key and CEP guard. For a mutating overwrite tool the description covers the decisive behaviors (replacement, verification, per-track scope); only permission/undo expectations and explicit sibling routing are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description rises above it by explaining that placement is checked against 'the requested tracks' and that video-only or audio-only source items overwrite only the receiving track, which adds meaning to video_track_index/audio_track_index beyond their terse schema descriptions. Idempotency and the expected_cep_target guard are left entirely to the schema.

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 with scope: 'Overwrite the clip from the Source Monitor at the playhead position'. The parenthetical '(overwrite edit — replaces existing clips)' makes the distinction from an insert-style edit explicit, so an agent can tell it apart from insert_from_source without consulting 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?

Usage context is implied by the overwrite-vs-insert semantics and by the stream-coverage requirement, so an agent knows this is the destructive-replace path. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit 'use this when X, use insert_from_source when Y' routing, which is the main gap for a tool with a closely related sibling.

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

Deploy Server