Captures the active Final Cut Pro dialog or front window as a tree, exposing buttons, fields, and values so MCP clients can inspect and navigate the UI.
Describe the UI of the open dialog or front window (buttons, fields, values) as a tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| window | No | Window name. Default: the open dialog, else the front window. | |
| max_nodes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds that the return is a structured tree of UI elements, which is useful context, but says nothing about truncation behavior from depth/max_nodes limits or what happens when no window is found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb, resource, and returned form with zero filler. Nothing in it is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-param, no-output-schema read tool, the definition covers the core purpose but leaves return-structure and truncation semantics undocumented. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about depth/max_nodes effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% — the 'window' parameter is documented in-schema and the description's 'open dialog or front window' echoes it, but 'depth' and 'max_nodes' (with truncation implications) get no explanation in either structured fields or description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Describe') and a precise resource ('UI of the open dialog or front window... as a tree') with examples of what it reports (buttons, fields, values). This distinguishes it from visual siblings like fcp_screenshot, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'open dialog or front window' implies the inspection context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-alternatives guidance versus fcp_screenshot, fcp_menu_list, or fcp_status. Usage must be inferred from the resource named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.