Import an FCPXML file or bundle into Final Cut Pro to add projects to a library without overwriting existing content.
Import an FCPXML file or bundle into Final Cut Pro. Projects are added; nothing is overwritten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | .fcpxml file or .fcpxmld bundle. | |
| library | No | Name of an open library, or path to a .fcpbundle (opened if closed, created if missing). Default: the open library when exactly one is open. |
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=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: imports are additive, projects are added, and nothing is overwritten. It does not state prerequisites such as whether FCP must already be running, which would be the remaining useful detail.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the non-destructive guarantee follows immediately.
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 two-parameter import tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does and confirms the operation is additive. It could be slightly stronger by noting whether Final Cut Pro must be running or by pointing to validation as a prerequisite, but nothing essential is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that path is a .fcpxml file or .fcpxmld bundle and documents library defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific verb (Import) and resource (FCPXML file or bundle) plus the target application (Final Cut Pro), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like fcpxml_read, fcpxml_validate, and fcpxml_build_timeline by describing an actual import into FCP.
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?
Usage is implied — an agent should call this when it has an FCPXML to bring into Final Cut Pro — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as fcpxml_validate before importing or fcpxml_read for inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.