Skip to main content
Glama

Remove Effect

remove_effect
Destructive

Remove a single effect from a clip by index or name and verify the clip's remaining components afterward; built-in components like Opacity and Motion cannot be removed.

Instructions

Remove one effect from a clip by its index or name (the last instance when names repeat) and verify the clip's components afterwards. Built-in components (Opacity, Motion, Volume, Channel Volume, Panner) cannot be removed. EXPERIMENTAL: when Premiere has no Component.remove() (25.2), it removes through the undocumented QE DOM's targeted qeClip.getComponentAt(i).remove(). Every matching component's removal path is checked before any is removed; it returns a capability error, with nothing changed, when neither path is available.

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_effect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip
effect_nameNoName of the effect to remove (alternative to effect_index)
effect_indexNoIndex of the effect to remove (0-based). Use get_clip_properties to see effects list.
idempotency_keyNoOptional 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_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
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it states the removal is verified afterwards, that every matching component's removal path is checked before any removal (atomic pre-validation), and that a capability error is returned with nothing changed when no path exists. It also discloses the undocumented QE DOM fallback used on Premiere 25.2, which is exactly the kind of risk context an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and selection rule, then constraints, then the experimental fallback caveat. The final sentence is dense with parenthetical detail but every clause carries operational value; nothing is merely restated from annotations or schema.

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 destructive, multi-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers selection semantics, built-in exclusions, atomicity, and the failure mode. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to sibling removal tools, which is not covered anywhere in the structured fields.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: effect_name and effect_index are alternatives, and repeated names resolve to the last instance. It does not explain the expected_cep_target or idempotency_key guards, but those are heavily documented in the schema itself.

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 states a specific verb and resource plus the selection mode: remove one effect from a clip by index or name, with a tie-break rule (last instance when names repeat). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling remove_effect_by_name, which also implies name-based removal, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Useful exclusions are given: built-in components (Opacity, Motion, Volume, Channel Volume, Panner) cannot be removed. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance, such as when to prefer remove_effect_by_name, remove_all_effects, or how to pick index versus name.

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