DaVinci Resolve MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the node becomes active/selected, error conditions, or how it interacts with the composition. The return value description is minimal ('message indicating success or failure') without detailing format or content.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting makes it easy to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does reasonably well explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. For a node creation operation in a composition environment, more detail about effects, dependencies, or error scenarios would be helpful.

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 provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'node_type' is explained with examples ('Blur', 'ColorCorrector', 'Text'), and 'parameters' is described as 'Optional dictionary of parameters to set on the node'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Create a Fusion node') and resource ('in the current composition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_fusion_node_chain' or explain what distinguishes a single node creation from a chain creation.

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 like 'create_fusion_node_chain' or other creation tools. It mentions the context ('current composition') but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.

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