premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove Keyframe

remove_keyframe

Destructive

Remove a keyframe from an effect property at a specified time and return the remaining keys; refuses without changes when no key is within 0.01s of that time.

Instructions

Remove the keyframe at a time from an effect property and read the remaining keys back. Refuses, changing nothing, when no key is within 0.01s of that time.

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>",
      "property_name": "<property_name>",
      "time_seconds": "<time_seconds>"
    },
    "name": "remove_keyframe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the clip
`effect_name`	Yes	Display name of the effect
`time_seconds`	Yes	Seconds from the clip's start on the timeline (0 is the clip's first frame) of the keyframe to remove
`property_name`	Yes	Display name of the property
`property_index`	No	Optional property index from get_effect_properties; required when property_name is duplicated.
`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

A3.8/5.0

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 still earns credit by disclosing the 0.01s matching tolerance, the atomic refusal ('changing nothing'), and that the remaining keys are returned. It says nothing about the idempotency_key or the CEP guard parameters, but those are documented in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the failure mode both front-loaded. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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 mutation with eight parameters and nested identity guards, the description covers the action, the matching rule, and the no-op path, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The gap is minor: it never mentions the reviewed-identity guards or the idempotency key that distinguish safe retries from duplicate edits.

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 explains node_id, effect_name, property_name, time_seconds, and the guard objects. The description's only semantic addition is the 0.01s tolerance applied to time_seconds, which is meaningful but minimal against six other parameters it does not touch.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the keyframe at a time from an effect property', and adds the readback of remaining keys. The singular 'the keyframe at a time' implicitly separates it from the range-oriented sibling, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 refusal condition ('no key is within 0.01s of that time') tells an agent when the call will no-op, which is useful pre-call guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing against add_keyframe, remove_keyframe_range, or set_keyframe_interpolation, so routing must be inferred from the verb.

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

Deploy Server