premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Redo

redo

Restores the most recently undone Premiere Pro project actions through QE, verifying each step against the undo-stack position and refusing when the expected index differs.

Instructions

EXPERIMENTAL (undocumented QE DOM: qe.project.redo / undoStackIndex). Redo the most recently undone Premiere project action(s) through QE, checked step by step against Premiere's undo-stack position (stackVerified; the timeline itself is not read back). To restore a tool call undone with undo, pass the same count. Observed marker boundaries refuse before any step; acknowledge_untracked_markers:true permits prior non-marker actions, without proving marker reversal.

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": {
      "expected_undo_stack_index": "<expected_undo_stack_index>"
    },
    "name": "redo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of redo steps (default: 1)
`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.
`expected_undo_stack_index`	Yes	Required safety guard: the undoStackIndexAfter reported by the undo you want to redo. The step is refused, with nothing changed, when Premiere's undo-stack position differs from it. The guard compares the position only; matching position cannot prove which action is on top.
`acknowledge_untracked_markers`	No	Explicitly acknowledge that QE steps reverse or restore prior non-marker actions, because marker reversal is not verified. Default false; marker boundaries refuse the entire request before any step.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context: experimental QE DOM status, step-by-step verification against undo-stack position, no timeline readback, and marker-boundary refusal behavior. The acknowledge_untracked_markers caveat explicitly discloses that marker reversal is not proven, which is exactly the kind of behavioral limitation an agent needs.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the experimental warning and purpose, then layers in the verification and marker caveats in four dense sentences. Every sentence carries useful information, though the parenthetical QE identifiers and stacked caveats make it denser than ideal.

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 QE-backed mutation with a required undo-stack guard, the description covers the key risks: experimental status, verification method, marker-boundary refusal, and the acknowledgement escape hatch. Return values are covered by the output schema, and the remaining parameter details are in the fully described input schema, so the description is complete enough for safe selection.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds some meaning by tying count to the same count used in undo and by explaining the practical effect of acknowledge_untracked_markers on marker boundaries. Other guards such as expected_cep_target and idempotency_key are left 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?

The description states a specific verb (redo) and resource (most recently undone Premiere project action(s)) through QE, and explicitly links it to undo by telling the caller to pass the same count when restoring an undone tool call. That is enough to distinguish it from the inverse undo tool without opening the schema.

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 clear usage scenario — restore a tool call undone with undo by passing the same count — and notes that observed marker boundaries refuse before any step. It does not spell out when to prefer other recovery siblings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server