premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Review Text Changes

review_text_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview literal replacements or copy changes for inspected MOGRT text and caption artifacts, preserving originals and revisions while recording explicit approve or reject decisions before edits.

Instructions

Preview literal replacements or supplied copy changes for inspected MOGRT text and supplied caption artifacts. Preserve original text and evidence revisions with explicit approve/reject decisions. Does not translate, access native graphics/caption text or apply changes.

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": {
      "entries": "<entries>"
    },
    "name": "review_text_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entries`	Yes	Bounded copy-review entries; original text is preserved for later comparison.
`find_text`	No	Optional literal, case-sensitive search; regex is not executed.
`rejected_ids`	No	Explicitly rejected entry IDs. Unselected entries remain pending.
`replace_text`	No	Literal replacement, required together with find_text. Dollar signs have no special meaning.
`selected_ids`	No	Explicitly approved entry IDs. Omit for an initial review; an empty array approves nothing.
`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.
`expected_review_revision`	No	Revision from the initial review; required when selecting or rejecting entries. A changed input requires a new review.

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 readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false; the description adds real value beyond them by stating originals are preserved, revisions are recorded as evidence, and decisions must be explicit approve/reject. It also adds negative scope (no translation, no native graphics/caption access, no application), though it doesn't discuss failure modes such as stale revisions.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by preservation guarantees and negative scope. 'Supplied copy changes' is slightly vague phrasing, but there is no filler.

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?

For an 8-parameter, nested-schema read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing conceptual layer: what the entries represent, the approve/reject model, and what the tool deliberately will not touch. Nothing an agent needs to select or correctly frame a call is absent.

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% and the nested entry fields already document id/kind/target_id/original_text/proposed_text/source_revision semantics. The description adds only the workflow framing (preview then approve/reject) and does not clarify the find_text/replace_text pairing or the expected_* guards beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (preview) and resource (literal replacements / supplied copy changes for MOGRT text and caption artifacts), plus explicit exclusions ('Does not translate, access native graphics/caption text or apply changes'). It does not name the sibling that applies the changes, so an agent still has to infer that gap, but the scope is otherwise unambiguous.

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?

Makes clear this is a preview step that preserves originals and requires explicit approve/reject decisions, and that it does not apply changes, so the agent knows this is the review phase, not the mutation phase. It stops short of naming which sibling performs the actual mutation, leaving that inference to the agent.

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

Deploy Server