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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Preview Edit Plan

preview_edit_plan

Validate a planned Premiere sequence edit and return a single-use confirmation token for apply_edit_plan, without modifying the project.

Instructions

Inspect sequence, project item, clip and requested track targets before previewing a compound timeline edit without changing Premiere. Returns a single-use confirmation token bound to stable project, sequence and target identities; it expires after 30 minutes and is required by apply_edit_plan.

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": {
      "plan": "<plan>"
    },
    "name": "preview_edit_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesAn edit plan: { sequence_id?, operations: [...] } with up to 100 insert_clip and remove_clip operations. Operations run in order, and each one's times refer to the timeline as the operations before it left it.
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: no Premiere mutation, single-use token, 30-minute expiry, identity binding to project/sequence/targets. This also clarifies why readOnlyHint=false despite 'without changing Premiere' (a token is issued). It doesn't say what happens when inspection fails, e.g. whether an error is raised or a refusal result is returned.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the token/expiry/consumer facts come after the purpose statement. The opening clause listing four target kinds is slightly clause-heavy but still front-loads the core purpose.

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?

For a complex tool with a nested plan object, a CEP guard object and an output schema, the description covers the essential contract: no mutation, what is returned, how long it lives, and which tool consumes it. Remaining details (result shape, failure modes) are handled by the output schema or are non-blocking.

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 nested plan/operations and expected_cep_target fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own (e.g. that the plan holds up to 100 ordered operations), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses specific verbs (inspect, preview) on a specific resource (a compound timeline edit plan spanning sequence, project item, clip and track targets) and names the follow-up tool apply_edit_plan. It does not distinguish itself from the other preview_*_plan siblings (preview_extended_edit_plan, preview_editorial_plan), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Saying the returned token 'is required by apply_edit_plan' establishes the use context clearly: call this first, then apply. There are no explicit exclusions or guidance on when a different preview tool is the better choice, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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