premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove Effect By Name

remove_effect_by_name

Destructive

Removes every instance of a specified effect from a clip by display name and verifies the clip’s components afterward, falling back to QE DOM when the supported API is unavailable.

Instructions

Remove all instances of a specific effect from a clip by display name and verify the clip's components afterwards. 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>",
      "effect_name": "<effect_name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_effect_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the clip
`effect_name`	Yes	Display name of the effect to remove
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an EXPERIMENTAL fallback through the undocumented QE DOM when Component.remove() is absent, a pre-flight check of every matching component's removal path, and atomicity ('nothing changed' on capability error). It stops short of describing the verification result or what happens on partial failure mid-removal.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the implementation caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; the QE DOM internals are slightly more implementation detail than an agent strictly needs, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and full schema coverage, the description's remaining burden is behavioral: it covers the fallback mechanism, atomicity guarantee, and error mode. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 node_id, effect_name, idempotency_key and the expected_* guards in detail. The description only reinforces that effect_name is a display name and that all matches are removed; it adds no format or matching-rule detail (e.g. case sensitivity, partial matches) beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove all instances of a specific effect from a clip') plus the selection key ('by display name') and a post-condition ('verify the clip's components afterwards'). The 'all instances' + 'by display name' framing distinguishes it from remove_effect and remove_all_effects without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for name-based removal, and the description explains the fallback path and the capability-error outcome. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over remove_effect or remove_all_effects, nor any preconditions such as the clip needing to be selected or the sequence active.

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

Deploy Server