premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Slide Edit

slide_edit

Slide a Premiere Pro clip left or right by a specified offset while validating adjacent clips and media duration before changing the timeline.

Instructions

Perform a verified slide edit on a clip using adjacent clips from the public timeline DOM. Linked audio/video partners get the same edit by default (include_linked); every clip is checked before any is changed. Requires readable finite media and ffprobe duration evidence for every edited source; refuses unknown duration, stills, and nonunit/reversed speed before mutation. Existing host Out padding below one sequence frame may be preserved or reduced, but never used to create additional padding.

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>",
      "offset_seconds": "<offset_seconds>"
    },
    "name": "slide_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the clip
`include_linked`	No	Also apply the edit to the clip's linked audio/video partners so picture and sound stay in sync (default: true).
`offset_seconds`	Yes	Offset in seconds (positive = slide right, negative = slide left)
`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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the basic safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed world); the description adds real behavior beyond that: linked audio/video partners move together by default, every clip is validated before any is changed (all-or-nothing), and specific media/speed classes are refused pre-mutation. The padding rule notes that sub-frame Out padding may be preserved or reduced but never grown, which is non-obvious side-effect context.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by default behavior and preflight guarantees. The padding sentence is niche but earns its place because it constrains an otherwise ambiguous edge behavior; no filler or restated title text.

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 validated mutation tool with a rich nested schema and an output schema, the description covers atomicity, default linked behavior, and refusal conditions, which is most of what an agent needs to call it safely. The remaining gap is that the slide-vs-slip-vs-roll distinction is left implicit, which matters given several adjacent edit tools.

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, offset_seconds, include_linked, idempotency_key, and the expected_* guards. The description echoes the include_linked default but adds no format, range, or unit detail for offset_seconds or the CEP identity guards beyond what the schema states.

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 (slide edit) on a specific resource (a clip), and names the mechanism (adjacent clips from the public timeline DOM), so an agent can tell this is a slide operation rather than a trim. It never explicitly contrasts itself with roll_edit or slip_edit, which are the closest siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 concrete preconditions and exclusions: readable finite media, ffprobe duration evidence, and refusal of unknown duration, stills, and nonunit/reversed speed before mutation. It stops short of naming when to choose this over slip_edit or roll_edit, so the alternative-selection half of the guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server