Skip to main content
Glama

Remove From Timeline

remove_from_timeline
Destructive

Remove a clip from a Premiere Pro timeline, including linked audio/video by default, and optionally close the resulting gap with a ripple delete to keep sync-locked tracks aligned.

Instructions

Remove a clip from the timeline. By default its linked audio/video partners go with it, as with Premiere's Clear on a linked clip. With ripple: true the gap is closed through the same explicit, verified ripple delete as ripple_delete (Premiere's own ripple flag does nothing on current builds), shifting sync-locked tracks so audio stays in sync.

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_from_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rippleNoWhether to ripple delete (close the gap). Default: false
node_idYesNode ID of the clip to remove
include_linkedNoAlso remove the clip's linked audio/video partners (default: true). A ripple removal always includes them, since closing the gap on one side only would desync the timeline.
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.
allow_large_rippleNoAllow a ripple above large_ripple_threshold after its read-only mover estimate.
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.
large_ripple_thresholdNoMover count above which ripple removal refuses unless allow_large_ripple is true (default: 400).

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description discloses key side effects: linked audio/video partners are removed by default, ripple removal closes the gap, sync-locked tracks shift to preserve sync, and Premiere's native ripple flag is ineffective on current builds. This gives the agent substantial behavioral context for a destructive mutation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no wasted wording, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but every clause contributes actionable behavioral detail about ripple and linked clips.

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 destructive tool with eight parameters, nested guard objects, and an output schema, the description covers the central removal and ripple semantics well. It does not mention the large-ripple guard, idempotency behavior, or identity guards, but those are thoroughly documented in the schema and output schema, so the omission is acceptable.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the meaning of ripple and default linked-partner removal, but does not add meaning for the other six parameters such as idempotency_key, allow_large_ripple, expected_cep_target, expected_project_path, or large_ripple_threshold.

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 and resource: 'Remove a clip from the timeline.' It also distinguishes the default linked-partner behavior from ripple mode and explicitly references the sibling ripple_delete, so an agent can identify the tool's scope 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?

The description clearly explains the two main modes: default removal preserves linked behavior while removing partners, and ripple: true closes the gap via a verified ripple delete. It names ripple_delete as the equivalent operation for ripple mode, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list all alternative siblings.

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