premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set Source In Out

set_source_in_out

Sets the in and/or out points on the clip open in Premiere Pro's Source Monitor, accepting seconds for either or both marks.

Instructions

Set in and/or out points on the clip currently open in the Source Monitor.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`in_seconds`	No	In point in seconds. Provide this, out_seconds, or both.
`out_seconds`	No	Out point in seconds. Provide this, in_seconds, or both.
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not say what happens to an existing in or out point when only one is supplied, whether the edit is undoable, or how out-before-in is handled. For a mutation tool with rich guard parameters, that is a notable gap.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so terse that efficiency shades into under-specification.

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 exposes five parameters including nested CEP guard objects and idempotency handling, and the description says nothing about those behaviors or about the in/out interaction. An output schema and full schema coverage reduce the burden, but a mutation tool of this complexity needs more than one sentence of context.

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 parameters including in_seconds, out_seconds, idempotency_key and expected_cep_target are already documented in the schema. The description's 'and/or' phrasing only echoes what the schema states and adds no units, ordering, or interaction semantics beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Set) and resource (in and/or out points) and scopes it precisely to 'the clip currently open in the Source Monitor', which implicitly separates it from sequence-level and item-level siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer a clip must already be open in the Source Monitor, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over set_item_in_out or set_sequence_in_out_points, and no mention of prerequisites or failure conditions.

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

Deploy Server