premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set Scale Width Height

set_scale_width_height

Set independent width and height scale on a Premiere Pro clip by disabling Uniform Scale and writing both values, with read-back verification to confirm the edit applied.

Instructions

Set independent width and height scale on a clip. Turns Uniform Scale off, writes Motion > Scale Width (width) and Motion > Scale (which Premiere uses as the height once Uniform Scale is off), then reads all three back. Fails when a value does not read back.

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>",
      "scale_width": "<scale_width>",
      "scale_height": "<scale_height>"
    },
    "name": "set_scale_width_height"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the clip
`scale_width`	Yes	Scale width percentage (0-10000)
`scale_height`	Yes	Scale height percentage (0-10000). Written to Motion > Scale, which is the height when Uniform Scale is off.
`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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds genuine behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that Uniform Scale is switched off as a side effect, which property each value is written to, that all three are read back for verification, and that a failed readback causes failure. That read-back/fail semantics is a meaningful reliability disclosure not inferable from destructiveHint=false. It does not discuss undo/rollback of the Uniform Scale toggle or how failure is reported.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then mechanism, then failure condition. No repetition of the title and no filler.

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?

Given a mutation tool with six parameters, nested identity guards, and an output schema, the description covers the operation, its side effect, and its failure mode, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Retry/idempotency behavior and guard preconditions are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but would have been worth a clause.

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, scale_width, scale_height, idempotency_key and the guards. The description adds the host-level mapping (width → Motion > Scale Width, height → Motion > Scale), which is useful but largely mirrors what the scale_height schema text already says, so it sits at the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 and target ('Set independent width and height scale on a clip') and immediately distinguishes itself from proportional scaling by explaining that Uniform Scale is turned off. An agent can tell this apart from set_uniform_scale or set_clip_scale without opening either 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 'independent width and height' framing plus the Uniform Scale side effect makes the use case clear (non-proportional stretch), which implies when to prefer this over uniform scaling. It never names the sibling alternatives or states an explicit exclusion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server