premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove Transition

remove_transition

Destructive

Removes one track transition in Premiere Pro by exact index or a cut within its stored span, verifies the remaining span list, and rejects ambiguous cuts.

Instructions

Remove one CEP track transition by exact index or a cut contained in its stored span. Uses TrackTransition.remove(false, false), verifies the complete remaining span list, and refuses ambiguous cuts. No QE fallback. Stored geometry only; rendered appearance remains a separate check.

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": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>"
    },
    "name": "remove_transition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`track_type`	No	Track kind (default video).
`track_index`	Yes	Zero-based track index.
`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.
`transition_index`	No	Exact index from transitionsAffected; specify this or cut_point_seconds.
`cut_point_seconds`	No	Cut inside exactly one transition's stored span; specify this or transition_index.
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds real post-condition behavior: it verifies the complete remaining span list and refuses ambiguous cuts. It also scopes the effect to stored geometry, noting rendered appearance is a separate check. The TrackTransition.remove(false, false) implementation detail is low-value noise, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences: purpose first, then mechanics, then the refusal rule, then scope. Nothing is buried and no sentence is filler, aside from a minor internal API signature mention.

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 7-parameter destructive tool with nested guard objects and an output schema, the description covers the material behavior: verification, ambiguity refusal, no fallback, and stored-vs-rendered scope. It omits the existence precondition and says nothing about the idempotency or expected_cep_target guards, though those are documented in the schema.

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 track_index, transition_index, cut_point_seconds, idempotency_key, and the expected_cep_target guards. The description echoes the mutual exclusivity of index vs cut point but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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, resource, and cardinality: 'Remove one CEP track transition,' then names the two exclusive selection modes (exact index or a cut inside its stored span). The 'No QE fallback' and 'CEP' qualifiers distinguish it from backend-ambiguous siblings in the removal family.

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?

Gives clear selection rules (index vs cut point) and an explicit refusal condition for ambiguous cuts, plus the negative constraint that no QE fallback is attempted. It does not explicitly compare against siblings like remove_all_effects, 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