premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set Color Value

set_color_value

Set an effect property's color by specifying red, green, blue, and alpha values on a clip's component, enabling tint or fill color changes.

Instructions

Set a color value on an effect property (e.g., tint color, fill color)

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>",
      "component_name": "<component_name>",
      "property_name": "<property_name>",
      "alpha": "<alpha>",
      "red": "<red>",
      "green": "<green>",
      "blue": "<blue>"
    },
    "name": "set_color_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`red`	Yes	Red (0-255)
`blue`	Yes	Blue (0-255)
`alpha`	Yes	Alpha (0-255)
`green`	Yes	Green (0-255)
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the clip
`property_name`	Yes	Name of the color property; duplicate names require property_index from get_effect_properties.
`component_name`	Yes	Name of the component/effect
`property_index`	No	Optional exact property index from get_effect_properties; required if the name is repeated.
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety framing is covered. Beyond that the description adds only property examples – it says nothing about duplicate-property names requiring an index, what happens on failure, or that it targets a specific node/component. For a mutation tool with nested guard parameters, this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, resource, and illustrative examples; nothing is wasted. Its brevity is appropriate in form but leaves no room for the operational context the tool needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 7 required parameters, nested identity guards (expected_cep_target), and an output schema, yet the description is one clause long. Nothing tells the agent that duplicate property names require property_index from get_effect_properties or that the expected_* fields are pre-mutation guards – the most consequential information for correct invocation.

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% and all 11 parameters (including alpha/red/green/blue ranges and the idempotency key) are documented in the schema itself, so baseline 3 applies. The description's examples of color properties add marginal orientation but no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Set a color value on an effect property') and clarifies with examples ('tint color, fill color'), so the agent knows this mutates an existing effect's color rather than a label. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic 'set_effect_property' sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer set_effect_property or set_color_label instead, and no stated prerequisites such as discovering the property via get_effect_properties. The only hint of a workflow lives in the schema's property_name description, not the tool description.

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

Deploy Server