premiere-pro-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Unnest Sequence

unnest_sequence

Replaces a nested sequence clip on the timeline with its inner clips at their exact source and timeline positions, refusing when the nest is trimmed, retimed, or the target range is occupied.

Instructions

Unnest a nested sequence clip, replacing it with the nested sequence's clips at their exact source in/out and timeline positions. Refuses without changing anything when the nest is trimmed, retimed, linked to a partner clip, contains items that also carry the other media type (Premiere's Track.overwriteClip would place that media on the matching track and overwrite the clips there), or when the destination range is occupied or locked. Re-reads every placed clip and reports failure with Undo guidance if any start or source range differs. Nested clips are re-placed from their project items, so effects, keyframes, and transitions inside the nest are not carried over.

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>"
    },
    "name": "unnest_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node_id`	Yes	Node ID of the nested sequence clip on the timeline to unnest
`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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Well beyond the annotations, it discloses atomicity ('refuses without changing anything'), post-write verification ('re-reads every placed clip') and the Undo-guidance failure path, plus the data caveat that effects, keyframes and transitions inside the nest are not carried over. There is a mild tension with destructiveHint=false given that inner effects are lost, but the clips themselves persist and the description is transparent about the trade-off, so this is disclosure rather than contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its result, then refusal conditions, then verification, then the loss caveat. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with nested-object guards and a 100%-covered schema plus an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it transforms, when it aborts, how failure is reported, and what is lost. Nothing material is left unstated.

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 node_id, idempotency_key and expected_cep_target parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit clarification that node_id refers to a nested-sequence clip on the timeline, which the schema also says. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Unnest a nested sequence clip') and immediately states the resulting state ('replacing it with the nested sequence's clips at their exact source in/out and timeline positions'). That outcome-level framing distinguishes it from generic edit tools like create_sequence_from_clips or duplicate_sequence.

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 concrete preconditions under which the tool refuses (trimmed/retimed nest, linked partner clip, mixed media-type items, occupied or locked destination range), which effectively tells the agent when not to call it. It does not name a specific alternative tool for those cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server