Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fcpxml-mcp-server

fcpxml-mcp-server

by DareDev256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

watch

Monitor a Final Cut Pro export folder, detect new XML files as they land, and diff each against the last seen version. Supports start, status, stop, and pull actions for round-trip workflows.

Instructions

Close the round-trip. Watch the Final Cut Pro export folder, detect the XML the moment it lands, and diff it against the last one seen. Pair with deliver.push_to_fcp for a full loop: push in, edit, Cmd-E, watch_pull. Actions: watch_start, watch_status, watch_stop, watch_pull.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "watch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoArguments for the chosen action, e.g. {"filepath": "/path/to/project.fcpxml"}. Any action that takes a filepath also accepts expected_sha256: the call refuses if the file no longer hashes to it (every write result and analyze_timeline report the current sha256).
actionYesWhich operation to run.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.26.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / args / description
      Previous value: -"Arguments for the chosen action, e.g. {\"filepath\": \"/path/to/project.fcpxml\"}."New value: +"Arguments for the chosen action, e.g. {\"filepath\": \"/path/to/project.fcpxml\"}. Any action that takes a filepath also accepts expected_sha256: the call refuses if the file no longer hashes to it (every write result and analyze_timeline report the current sha256)."
  2. Addedv0.22.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: event-driven detection ('the moment it lands') and statefulness ('diff it against the last one seen'), implying a stored baseline. But it omits whether watch_start blocks, where watch state persists, what happens if started twice, and what each action returns.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded and the workflow/action list follows in a single compact paragraph. The opening fragment 'Close the round-trip' is slightly promotional, but overall there is little waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a four-action dispatcher with a nested args object and no output schema, the description covers the overall purpose but leaves the individual action semantics and returns unexplained. An agent still lacks enough to invoke watch_status or watch_pull confidently, though the high schema coverage partly compensates.

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 enum action values and the nested args object are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description repeats the action names without explaining each action's arguments or behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs and a resource: watch the Final Cut Pro export folder, detect XML on landing, and diff it against the previous version. It also enumerates the four actions (watch_start, watch_status, watch_stop, watch_pull), so an agent can tell what capabilities it exposes. It references the sibling workflow (deliver.push_to_fcp) but does not fully differentiate itself from the other siblings like preview or inspect.

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 clear context for use: 'Pair with deliver.push_to_fcp for a full loop: push in, edit, Cmd-E, watch_pull', which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no exclusions relative to alternatives.

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