DaVinci Resolve MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Adds' a Fusion composition, implying a mutation, but does not specify permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing clips), or error conditions beyond a generic success/failure message. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the parameter explanations could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details and usage context. The presence of an output schema (indicating a message) reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited for effective agent use.

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 lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The index of the timeline (1-based)'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it lacks details on constraints (e.g., valid ranges for indices) or interactions between parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a Fusion composition to a clip') and the target resource ('in the timeline'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., 'create_fusion_node' or 'create_timeline_from_clips'), leaving some ambiguity about its unique role in the toolset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Fusion-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing timeline or clip) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.