Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
premiere-pro-mcp

premiere-pro-mcp

by matt-j-penny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Slip Edit

slip_edit

Shift a clip's source in and out points without moving it on the timeline, verifying media duration and applying the same edit to linked audio and video partners.

Instructions

Perform a verified slip edit on a clip using public source in/out properties. Requires accessible physical media duration from ffprobe; unknown duration or linked partners using different source files refuse before mutation. Linked audio/video partners get the same edit by default (include_linked); every clip is checked before any is changed. 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": "slip_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_idYesNode ID of the clip
include_linkedNoAlso apply the edit to the clip's linked audio/video partners so picture and sound stay in sync (default: true).
offset_secondsYesOffset in seconds (positive = slip forward in source, negative = slip backward)
idempotency_keyNoOptional 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_targetNoOptional reviewed CEP sequence/clip identity and exact tick ranges. Checked before every generated command; UXP refuses this CEP-only guard.
expected_project_pathNoOptional 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool completed successfully.
dataNoTool-specific result data when ok is true; on failure, diagnostic detail when the tool provides it.
toolYesThe registered MCP tool name.
errorNoFailure detail when ok is false.
receiptNoVersioned common mutation receipt; success never implies rendered verification.
idempotencyNoPresent 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.

  1. First observedv1.30.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false. The description goes well beyond: it declares all-or-nothing pre-validation ('every clip is checked before any is changed'), the default linked-partner propagation, the refusal conditions, and the Out-padding rule (may be preserved or reduced, never used to create padding). That is exactly the kind of mutation-safety context annotations cannot express.

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 action before the preconditions and the padding edge case. No filler or restatement of the title. The final sentence about host Out padding is somewhat compressed and takes a second read, but it carries non-obvious behavior.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with nested guard objects and an output schema, the description covers the behavior an agent most needs: atomicity, refusal conditions, linked-partner scope, and the padding invariant. The idempotency_key and expected_cep_target/expected_project_path guards are explained only in the schema, which is acceptable given their full descriptions there.

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 documents node_id, offset_seconds, include_linked and the guard objects. The description adds one genuinely new constraint beyond the schema: linked partners are only propagated when they share the same source file. That is a useful semantic addition but it is narrow relative to six richly documented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Perform a verified slip edit on a clip using public source in/out properties.' That is enough to distinguish a slip (source in/out shift) from a roll or slide in principle. It never names a sibling like slide_edit or roll_edit, so an agent must already know the editorial vocabulary to be certain.

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?

It gives real preconditions and refusal conditions: media duration must be readable via ffprobe, unknown duration or linked partners on different source files refuse before mutation. That tells the agent when the call will not work. It does not compare itself to any alternative editing tool, so tool selection between slip/slide/roll is left to the agent's own knowledge.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools