Removes effects from a Final Cut Pro clip, either all effects or only those matching a name substring, so you can clean up clips selectively or entirely.
Remove effects from a clip (all, or those whose name contains text).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| name_contains | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a destructive mutation by saying 'Remove effects,' but it does not disclose reversibility, undo behavior, permissions, or what happens when no effects match the filter.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the optional filtering behavior are both stated 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?
Given that this is a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete. It should explain safety behavior, expected return information, and more precise parameter semantics to be sufficient for reliable invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for name_contains by explaining that effects are matched by name text, and it implies that ref identifies the target clip. However, it does not specify the expected ref format, such as clip ID, index, or name.
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 and resource: 'Remove effects from a clip.' It also clarifies the two removal modes, all effects or a name-filtered subset. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling copy_effects tool, which keeps it from a 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 description implies the tool is used to remove effects and explains the optional name filter. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as copy_effects. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.