Moves Final Cut Pro's playhead to a specified time or timecode in the open project, so you can jump to exact edit points by seconds or timecode.
Move Final Cut Pro's playhead to a time (seconds or timecode) in the open project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fps | No | ||
| time | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether this is a safe/non-destructive reposition, what happens if no project is open, how out-of-range times are handled, or how fps affects interpretation, all of which matter for this tool.
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 tight sentence with zero waste and the key information front-loaded.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the purpose is covered, but the fps parameter's role and the exact time format remain unspecified, leaving an agent guessing on invocation details.
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 0%. The description clarifies that 'time' accepts seconds or timecode, adding real meaning, but the 'fps' parameter (default 30) is undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('Move ... playhead') plus scope ('in the open project'). No sibling competes at playhead positioning, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from anything, so a 4 rather than 5.
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 'in the open project' implies the context in which it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.