premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set Target Track

set_target_track

Targets or untargets a single video or audio track for source-patched insert and overwrite edits, then reads back every track of that type to verify the requested targeting state.

Instructions

Target or untarget one video or audio track for source-patched insert/overwrite edits. Premiere allows several tracks of a type to be targeted at once, so by default (exclusive=true) targeting a track also untargets every other track of the same type. Reads back every track of that type and reports verified only when the readback matches the requested state; otherwise committed_unverified or an error.

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_type": "<track_type>",
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "targeted": "<targeted>"
    },
    "name": "set_target_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`targeted`	Yes	Whether to target (true) or untarget (false) the track
`exclusive`	No	When targeting (targeted=true), also untarget every other track of the same type so only this track is targeted (default: true). Ignored when targeted=false.
`track_type`	Yes	Track type
`track_index`	Yes	Track index (0-based)
`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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a real side effect (exclusive=true untargets every other track of the same type), the readback verification step, and the three possible outcomes (verified, committed_unverified, error). This is exactly the mutation-side-effect and confirmation detail an agent needs before calling.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the exclusive side effect, then the verification contract. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence is packed and could be split for readability.

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 mutation tool with nested guard objects and an output schema, the description covers the core action, the key side effect, and the verification outcome model. Return-value detail is rightly left to the output schema, leaving only minor gaps such as failure modes for the guard parameters.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented, including exclusive's default and its being ignored when targeted=false. The description restates the exclusive semantics but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb pair (target/untarget) and resource (one video or audio track) and ties it to a concrete use case, source-patched insert/overwrite edits. It implicitly separates itself from set_all_tracks_targeted by scoping to a single track, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 context for when to use it (preparing a track for source-patched insert/overwrite edits) and explains the default exclusive behavior that untargets other tracks of the same type. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming the alternative tools for multi-track or read-only cases.

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

Deploy Server