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

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Preview Extended Edit Plan

preview_extended_edit_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview and validate a compound Premiere Pro edit plan before execution, checking up to 100 CEP targets and refusing unsupported or unsafe steps without mutating the project.

Instructions

Refuses attached transitions or unreadable transition collections before structural edits; inspect transitionsAffected and use remove_transition first. Preview up to100 distinct bound CEP targets for supported trim, experimental QE split, same-track move, enable, scalar effect and keyframe steps. All targets and descriptor identities validate before token issuance; unsupported links/retiming/unknown source handles refuse. Requires exact saved project path and active sequence. No mutation or atomicity claim.

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_extended_edit_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesStrict compound plan; one operation per host clip, canonical state binds identities and source handles.
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral content: all targets and descriptor identities validate before token issuance, unsupported links/retiming/unknown source handles refuse, and it explicitly disclaims atomicity. The only shortfall is the opaque phrase 'token issuance', which is not explained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is dense and jargon-heavy, and the lead sentence is an edge-case refusal about transitions rather than the core purpose, so the front-loading is inverted. Every clause is substantive, but the reader must reach the second sentence to learn what the tool actually does.

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 nested-schema, mutation-adjacent tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, refusal conditions, scope limits, and the non-mutating guarantee. Return values are rightly left to the output schema; only the token/apply handoff remains underspecified.

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 plan, steps, snapshot, and expected_cep_target in detail. The description restates the 100-target cap (already maxItems: 100) and adds that descriptor identities must match, but contributes little parameter meaning beyond the schema. 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?

It states a specific verb and resource: preview up to 100 bound CEP targets for a defined set of step types (trim, QE split, same-track move, enable, scalar effect, keyframe), and adds 'No mutation or atomicity claim.' However, it never names its closest siblings (preview_edit_plan, apply_extended_edit_plan), so a reader must infer from the name alone which preview/apply pair it belongs to.

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?

It gives a concrete redirect: refuse attached transitions and 'use remove_transition first', plus prerequisites (exact saved project path, active sequence). It is clear about the context in which the tool applies but stops short of an explicit 'use this before apply_extended_edit_plan' routing statement, leaving the preview-vs-apply pairing implicit.

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