premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Preview Scene Review Workflow

preview_scene_review_workflow

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview reviewed scene candidates against an exact CEP source and measured media duration before approving marker or subclip workflows to a destination bin, without modifying the project.

Instructions

Preview reviewed scene candidates against one exact CEP source and measured physical media duration. Binds project document/source path, explicit marker/subclip mode and destination bin name. No mutation; flashes/pans/fades remain in review evidence rather than automatic cuts.

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": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>",
      "segmentation": "<segmentation>",
      "mode": "<mode>",
      "bin_name": "<bin_name>"
    },
    "name": "preview_scene_review_workflow"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes	Explicit supported source-marker and/or subclip workflow.
`bin_name`	Yes	New bin/name prefix used for approved scenes.
`project_path`	Yes	Exact saved Premiere project path.
`segmentation`	Yes	Strict input accepted by plan_scene_segments, including approved indices and exact source duration/handles.
`parent_bin_id`	No	Optional exact existing parent bin ID.
`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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'No mutation'. It adds context annotations cannot carry: that flashes, pans and fades are surfaced as review evidence rather than converted into automatic cuts, and that matching is bound to one exact CEP source with measured duration. It does not discuss idempotency_key replay semantics, but the schema covers that at length.

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 scope, then binding constraints, then the non-mutation guarantee. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 tool with eight parameters, nested expected-CEP-target objects and an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile and the key binding constraints, leaving return values to the output schema. The main gap is the absent routing rule to the apply sibling, which is the most consequential decision an agent must make here.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the mode enum and the idempotency_key contract. The description adds only a light layer — that project/source path, marker/subclip mode and destination bin name are bound together, and that segmentation must carry measured duration and handles — which is useful but not meaningfully 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Preview reviewed scene candidates') and constrains the operation to 'one exact CEP source and measured physical media duration', which tells an agent what input shape is expected. It never names apply_scene_review_workflow, so the preview-versus-apply distinction is only implied by 'No mutation'.

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?

The clause 'No mutation; flashes/pans/fades remain in review evidence rather than automatic cuts' implies this is the safe dry-run step before applying, which is real usage signal. However, it never states when to call this instead of apply_scene_review_workflow or plan_scene_segments — the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server